IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1505 OF 2022

IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 2874 OF 2018.

Lata Manohar Sawardekar

Nee Lata Chandrakant Devrukhkar
….Plaintiff
Versus
Kalpana wd/o Satyawan Devrukhkar
& Ors
….Defendants

REJOINDER TO THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-

REPLY OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 TO
THE NOTICE OF MOTION FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF.

I, Lata Manohar Sawardekar Nee Lata Chandrakant

Devrukhkar, age- 43 years, the Plaintiff abovenamed, do hereby
state and declare on solemn affirmation as under:-

1. With reference to Para No. 1 & 2 of your said reply is nothing

but a monotonous stereotyped and formatted evasive denial reply
which lack any specific input by the Defendants and thus is
considered nothing more than a mere fulfilment of formality to
 reply which is not only devoid of any merit but also suffers from
infirmities as to factual content as alleged against the Plaintiff.

2. With reference to Para No. 3 to 6 of your said reply, no specific

reply/explanation is required as it contains no specific fact which
could be dealt with.

3. With reference to Para No. 7 (a) of your said reply, the contents
therein are matter of facts placed on record and thereby requires
no specific reply as the same are undisputed.

4. With reference to Para No. 7 (b) & (c) of your said reply, the
Plaintiff states that the contentions made therein are denied in
toto and states the real fact that after the death of the Smt. Laxmi
Chandrakant Devrukhar (for short “said deceased”), the
Defendants No. 1 with an ill intention and ulterior motive and in
collusion with the concerned authorities, transfer the suit
premises in her name exclusively for which the Plaintiff
addressed her objection letter dated 02/04/2013 to the Defendant
No. 4 and took objection for transfer of the suit premises in the
name of the Defendant No. 1 or anybody, without obtaining the
consent of the Plaintiff as she is one of the heirs and legal
representative and thereby entitled for 1/3 share in the said
property. The Plaintiff states that she had also sought information
under the RTI Act 2005 bearing RTI Application dated
14/10/2013 from the Defendant No. 4 to find whether there is
any application made in respect of the suit premises for effecting
 transfer in the name of the Legal heir and representative for the
Smt. Laxmi Chandrakant Devrukhar (for short “said deceased”).

5. With reference to Para No. 7 (d) & (e) of your said reply, the
Plaintiff states that that the content of para under are totally
wrong, false and hence denied and each and every contents of
para under reply are vehemently and specifically denied in toto
word by word and states the real fact that it was decided that all
the children would have equal rights in respect of the suit
premises and nobody would claim exclusive rights over the suit
premises and also that the parties hereto being legal heirs of the
said deceased, Ownership rights in respect of the said suit
premises devolved amongst the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1
to 3.

6. With reference to Para No. 8 (erroneously stated as Para No.

10) the Plaintiff shall deal with the contents of the Reply, para
wise as under:-

a. With reference to Para No. 8 (a) & (b), the Plaintiff states
that the contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff
accepts nothing contrary to what is stated in the suit.

b. With reference to Para No. 8 (c) to (k), the Plaintiff states

that the contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff
accepts nothing contrary to what is stated in the suit.
c. With reference to Para No. 8 (l), the Plaintiff denies the
content in toto and states the real fact that after it came to
knowledge that the factum of transfer of rent receipt in
respect of the suit premises, the Plaintiff obtained the
information under RTI by making the applications to the
Defendant No. 4 and came to know that on the basis of false
and misleading representations made by the Defendant No. 1
and forged signature purported to be signed by the Defendant
No. 2, the Defendant No. 1 with the help of some officials of
the Defendant No. 4, has succeeded in getting the suit
premises transferred in her name.

d. With reference to Para No. 8 (m), the Plaintiff states denies

the entire para in toto and states the real fact that the
Defendant No. 4 ought not to have transferred the suit
premises without the knowledge and consent of the other
heirs and legal representative of late Mrs. Laxmi Chandrakant
Devrukhkar. The Plaintiff states that the conduct on the part
of the officials of the Defendant No. 4 clearly shows that they
gave undue favour to the Defendant No. 1. In one of the
incidents, she noticed that there was collusion between the
officials of the Defendant No. 4 and the Defendant No. 1 and
hence she had to make a police complaint with the Antop Hill
Police Station.

e. With reference to Para No. 8 (n), the Plaintiff repeat,

reiterate and restate that she is one of the heirs and legal
 representative and hence she is entitled to get 1/3rd undivided
share in respect of the suit premises.

f. With reference to Para No. 8 (o), the Plaintiff states that the
contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff accepts
nothing contrary to what is stated in the Plaint. Further, the
Plaintiff states that being a legal heir of late Laxmi
Chandrakant Devrukhkar, she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the
suit premises and her legal rights are continuing and cannot
be denied by any of the Defendants.

g. With reference to Para No. 8 (p) & (q), the Plaintiff states
that the contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff
accepts nothing contrary to what is stated in the Plaint.

h. With reference to Para No. 8 (f) to (j), the Plaintiff states that
it is nothing but a monochrome relies which serve me nothing
but mere denial of every fact put forth by the Plaintiff.
However, the Plaintiff states that even your endless denials
could not change the fact that the Plaintiff is one of the heirs
and legal representative and hence she is entitled to get 1/3 rd
undivided share in respect of the suit premises. Further, the
Plaintiff states that the act of evasive denial, clearly infers
that the Defendants have nothing to cover your malicious
act, which leaves the Defendants with no other option but
to merely deny the facts.
 i. With reference to Para No. 8 (k), the Plaintiff states that she
has paid the appropriate court fees u/s. 6 (iv) of the Bombay
Court fees Act.

j. With reference to Para No. 8 (l), the Plaintiff vehemently

denies the contents therein and states that present Suit is well
within the period of limitation and cannot be barred by law.

k. With reference to Para No. 8 (m), the Plaintiff denies the

entire para in toto and states the real fact that

l. With reference to Para No. 8 (n), the contents therein are

noted.

7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the Plaintiff

have equal rights in respect of the suit premises and after the
death of the mother Smt. Laxmi Chandrakant Devrukhar (for
short “said deceased”), the parties hereto being the legal heirs of
the deceased, ownership rights in respect of the said suit
premises devolved amongst them i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendant
No. 1 to 3. The Plaintiff humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court
to be please to allow necessary prayers mentioned in the Suit.

Advocate for the Plaintiff Plaintiff

 V E R I F I C A T I O N.

I, Lata Manohar Sawardekar Nee Lata Chandrakant

Devrukhkar, age- 43 years, the Plaintiff abovenamed, do hereby
solemnly declare and state that what is stated in the foregoing
paragraphs are true to my own knowledge and belief and I believe
the same to be true:-

Solemnly declared at Mumbai, )

This day of , 2023 ) Before me

Advocate for the Plaintiff

IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1505 OF 2022
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 2874 OF 2018.

Lata Manohar Sawardekar

Nee Lata Chandrakant Devrukhkar
….Plaintiff
Versus
Kalpana wd/o Satyawan Devrukhkar & Ors
….Defendants

---------------------------------------------------------------------
REJOINDER TO THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY OF
DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 TO THE NOTICE OF
MOTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this day of , 2023

Sonal Hemant Mishal

Advocate For Plaintiff
Office No.1, Basement, Shopper’s
Point, Next to Moti Mahal Hotel,
Opp. Andheri Railway Station
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058.
Enrollment No. MAH/3566/2006
Email: advsonal.mishal2006@gmail.com
O.S. Regd: - 16234.
Advocate Code No.I-17497
Mobile No. 9969849102/9820846067