IN THE COURT OF MR.

NIPUN AWASTHI, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Civil Suit No. 342 Of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Kant ………Plaintiff

Versus

Dropati & Ors. ……Defendant

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of the law as no cause of action

to seek the relief of partition arises in favor of the plaintiff.

2. That the suit of the plaintiff is devoid of any legal force and the plaint is liable to be rejected

as the suit in question lacks cause of action.

3. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of the law as the valuation of the

suit property has not been carried out correctly by the plaintiff and hence the jurisdiction of

this court is also ousted by operation of law.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

It is submitted that the plaint, in its form and perusal is inconsistent with the actual facts of the

case. For a better understanding of the aspect and peculiarities of the present case, it is sought

to bring out the following facts:

1. That the Defendant No 3 is the daughter of Lt. Shri Shiv Lal, the original owner of the suit

property. The suit property in question qua which the Plaintiff is seeking partition was

originally allotted to Lt. Shiv Lal in his name by DDA under the then prevailing Jhuggi Jhopri

Removal Scheme vide allotment slip no.5819 dated 19/03/1971 .

2. That gradually all the daughters of Late Shri Shiv Lal gradually got married in

chronological sequence of their age and started their respective families. However out of the

said daughters, it was only the defendant no 3 who chose to settle down with her family, along

with the father of the parties. The motivation behind the said act was to ensure that she could

attend to the requirements and contingencies arising out of old age of the father of the parties.

3. That owing to the above mentioned reasons, in the year 2004, Lt. Shiv Lal out of natural

love and affection and for the economic security and benefit of Defendant No 3 transferred the

suit property to Defendant No 3, vide GPA, Agreement to Gift, Affidavit, Will all dated

29/04/2004.

4. That as such in the year 2009, the plaintiff requested the defendant no 3 to permit her to stay

in the suit property along with her family. The defendant no 3 being a dutiful and
compassionate person, permitted her to do the same. The plaintiff, along with her husband

have rather now started wrecking havoc owing to which co habitation between the parties

concerned has become practically impossible .

Thus keeping in mind the above mentioned facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as

claimed for and is rather liable to be penalized for filing a vexatious and false claim despite

being aware of the true facts of the case.

PARA-WISE REPLY ON MERITS:-

1. That the contents of Para no. 1 of the plaint are admitted as being matter of record.

2. That the contents of Para no. 2 of the plaint are admitted as being matter of record.

3. That the contents of Para no. 3 of the plaint are wrong and are vehemently denied.

4. That the contents of Para no 4 are wrong and denied. It is denied that there was any

attempt on behalf of Plaintiff to convince Defendants to live in peace and harmony. This is a

completely false and frivolous story concocted by the Plaintiff to project Defendant No 3 as a

very ruthless person having completely obnoxious attitude full of callousness. Although it is

admitted that Lt. Shiv Lal expired on 16/02/2008, it is specifically denied that Defendant No. 2

and 3 started conspiring and indulged in spurious activities to sell the suit property. The

Plaintiff has concocted a false story and this story is nothing but a bundle of lies fabricated by

the Plaintiff in order to carve out a ground for cause of action.

5. That the contents of Para no. 5 of the plaint are a bundle of lies and thus are wrong and

vehemently denied. It is denied that Plaintiff ever came forward to make up with the

Defendant No 3. It is submitted that there was never any dispute and neither had Defendant No

3 intimidated the Plaintiff for illegal demands nor had there been any illegal demand. Instead,

the defendant was many times harassed by the plaintiff.

6. That the contents of Para no. 6 of the plaint are wrong and specifically denied.

7. That the contents of Para no 7 are wrong and denied. It is denied that Defendant No 3 has

ever administered atrocities or adopted any unlawful means to cause intimidation or launch

attack on Plaintiff or her family. Defendant No 3 has tried to maintain cordial relations among

family members and allowed Plaintiff and other Defendants to enjoy the property. The

defendant created the environment so that other members can enjoy the property and the

defendant always tried to remove the tension. It is denied that due to greed the Defendant No 3

ever tried to usurp the suit property to the detriment of the Plaintiff as well as interest of other

legal heirs.

8. That the last Para of the plaint is the prayer made by the Plaintiff, which is based on false

and concocted facts. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed under this Para.

Prayer

It is therefore prayed that the court may be pleased to:-

 Dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs,

 Pass any other orders as the court may deem fit.

Delhi Defendant

Dated: 1/11/2017 Through Counsels

Verification

Verified at New Delhi, on this 1 st day of November, 2017, that the contents of the Para
1-3 are Preliminary Objections, and the same are correct based upon the legal advice
received, that the preliminary submissions and Para 3-8 of the para wise reply are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed
herein.

Defendant