IN THE COURT OF MR.

SADIQ IMRAN CHOHAN LEARNED

CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE

In Re: Mst. Samina Aslam Etc

V_E_R_S_U_S

Shumaila Aslam Etc

( Suit For Partition)

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO 2

Respectfully Sheweth:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

1. That the suit has been filed malafidely intention just to harass and blackmail the

answering defendant.

2. That the suit property has already been partitioned by the predecessor is interest

of the parties namely Mst. Sadiqa Aslam and she had not only executed the

sale deeds of the respective portions in favor of the parties, but also handed over

the possession according to the sale deeds to the transferees/ Purchasers and

the parties are residing in their portions peacefully without any intereptions since

the execution of the sale deeds in their favour. It is pertinent to mention here that

the sale deed regarding the portion possessed by the answering defendant was

also executed vide document# ---------, Book #1, Volume # ------- dated--------

duly registered in the office of sub-registrar Ravi Town Lahore, and in the said

sale deed the boundaries regarding the portion of the property has also been

mentioned so in the presence of the sale deed the suit regarding the partition is

not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected Order 7, Rule 11 Cpc.
3. That the suit is not proceedable in its present from because as already

mentioned above that the predecessor in interest of the parties had already

partitioned the suit property except one portion, so, the suit for partition regarding

the whole property is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4. That the plaintiffs have not come before this Honorable Court with Clean hands.

5. That the plaintiffs themselves admitted the partition of suit property so through

this suit after the admission of the plaintiff the suit in hand is liable to be

dismissed.

ON MERIT

1. Admitted as correct, but it is further stated here that Mst.Sadiqa Aslam in her

life time alienated the suit property by partitioning the same and respective

shares of their portions were handed over to the parties.

2. That the contents of para # 2 are admitted as correct.

3. That the contents of para #3 are correct to the extent that the mother of

plaintiffs executed sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs No 1, and 2, rest of the

contents of para are misconceived hence denied vehemently. Furthermore,

the property mentioned in para #1 has already been partitioned and only a

portion of the above said property has not been partitioned so the suit

regarding the total land measuring 30 Marlas is liable to be dismissed and

the suit only to the extent of un-partitioned portion is maintainable.

4. That the content of para #4 are incorrect hence denied vehemently. The

answering defendant ha is in separate possession/ peace of land according

to the sale deed executed in her favor and the answering defendant was

going to raise construction over her portion which is not a joint property and

the plaintiffs as well as def#1 has no right upon the portion of the answering

defendant so the act of the answering defendant for constructing the land is

legal and lawful .It is incorrect that the defendants restrained the answering
 defendants from raising construction over her land because they very well

know that the answering defendant is in possession of her own land

according to her sale deed. It is also incorrect that the answering defendant

threatened the plaintiffs for dare consequences.

5. Incorrect hence denied. The plaintiffs has no cause of action against

answering defendant.

6. Legal

7. Legal

PRAYER

Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the suit under reply
may very kindly be dismissed.

Any other relief if deemed fit may also be awarded.

Defendant

Through

Saddy Mehmood Butt

(Advocate High Court)

56- The Mall Road, Lahore