IN THE COURT OF AZHAR MAJEED CIVIL JUDGE ISLAMABAD WEST

Naseer Ahmed Mughal etc VERSUS Abdul Hameed Mughal etc

SUIT FOR DECLARATION CANCELLATION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY

INJUNCTION

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1

Preliminary Objection:

1. That the suit is not within time.

2. That plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the instant suit.
3. That the instant suit is misconceived. It is neither maintainable

nor proceed-able.
4. That the suit is barred by law. The palint does not disclose any

caouse of action hence plaint is liable to be rejected under order

VII Rule 11 CPC.

5. That the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hand.

They have suppressed the facts fromt his honorable court rather

based their suit on false assertions hence the palinttffs are not

enititled to any discretioney relief.

6. That the suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of the

necessary parties.
ON FACTS:
1. Para No.1 is correct to the extent that Mst. Gulzar Begum was

co-owner in possession of suit land fuly described in this

para. Rest of the para is denied vehemently. Fact of the matter

is that Mst. GUlzar Begum sold away suit land to answering

Defendant though deed of sale Registered at Seial No. 11019,

attested on 15-10-1977 by Sub-Registerar against sale

consideration of rs 38,745/- . She dleiviered actual and

physical possession of suit land to answering defendant after

receiving entire sale consideration at the spot. The said sale

deed was duly mutated in all the relevant family record vide

Mutations No. 498 and 499 attested by concerned revenue

officer on the bases of said registered sale deeds in faor of

answering defendant and in corporated in record of rights

and periodical record. Entries to this effect are continuously

appearing in all the relevant revenue record in favor of

answering defendant since year 1978. Registered sale deed is

notice to public hence including the plaintiffs and their

predecessor in interest namely Mst. Gulzar Begum who

remaind alive till 03-12-1988, but she did not challancge the

viaries of said sale deed dated 15-10-1977, mutation No. 498

and 499 in consequent entreris in favor of answering

defendant till her death. Specialy in the circumstantces when

actual and physical possession of suit land was delivered to

answering defendant under the said sale deed and enteries

qua possession was also recorded in the relevant revenue

record. As