O.S.No.169/2018.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BIJAPUR

At: BIJAPUR.

1. Shivaji Baburao Ghatge Plaintiff.

V/s

1. Renuka S Ghatge and Ors Defendants.

s

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFEDANT NO.1

The defendant No. 1 files his Written

Statement, as under,

1. All the averments made in the plaint are denied by this

defendant except the averments specifically admitted are
to be taken as true and correct.

2. That the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable either on facts

or law involved in this case and same be dismissed with
costs.

3. The averments made in para No.2 of the plaint are false

except, the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of bearing
No. 81*/3 of Hanchinal village measuring A-10 G-08 out
of that A-3 of the land sold by his son under who was GPA
of plaintiff . The rest of the para i.e. A-10 of land was
illegally without the authority of plaintiff sub-divided into
2 parts and further 2 the property has been renumberes
as Sy No. 81*/3 and 81*/6 as per MRT No. 44/2015-16.
The allegations of fraud been played upon the plaintiff is
false and denied by this defendat.

4. The entire averments made in Para No.3 are false and

made out with mischivioulsy to see that a valid sale deed
5. The averments made in Para No. 2 of the plaint are not
sustainable in law, the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction
against this defendant, restraining him from getting
entered his name in record of rights in the context of
Regd. Sale deed, executed by the defendant No.1 and 2 on
20/04/2018 in respect of the suit land. The law is very
clear on this point, once the sale deed is registered under
Registration Act, a party in whose favor a sale deed is
executed by the owner, he cannot be denied the right to
get his name entered in the record of rights. If any claim
is there, the affected party can file a declaration suit for
his right, the result of that suit decides, whether the sale
deed is valid or not then only the name of the purchaser

-2-

can be deleted, if the sale deed is held to be void. In this

case the plaintiff has filed an injunction suit with a prayer
that this defendant should not take steps to get entered
his name in record of rights. Such suit itself is not
maintainable so the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with
costs.

6. The averments of Para No. 3 and 4 are no where

concerned to this defendant, since he is unaware of the
facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the said Paras. Therefore
this defendant denies the averments of Para No. 3 and 4.

7. The allegations made in Para No.5 of the plaint against

the defendant No. 1 and 2 are no where concerned to this
defendant. This defendant was unaware of any deed
dated: 06/04/2018 alleged to have been concocted by
defendant No.1 and 2. This defendant under a bonafied
belief accepted the deed dated: 06/04/2018 is a genuine
and purchased the suit land.

8. The averments of Para No. 6 and 7 are no where

concerned to him, the filing of Private Complaint against
the defendant NO.1 and 2 and also against the Senior
Sub-Registrar Bijapur and Ors is unconnected to this
defendant and also this thing will not come in the way of
him to hold and enjoy the suit land, which he purchased
under a valid Regd. Sale deed. The plaintiff under law has
 no right to file such kind of suit, seeking injunction decree
against him from getting entered his name in the record
of rights. Therefore the suit of plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed with costs.

9. The averments made in Para No. 8 of the plaint are false,

since this defendant was unaware of the filing of Private
Complaint against the defendant No.1 and 2, he came to
know it when he received the suit summons, so the
allegations made against him that he was in hurry to get
entered his name in record of rights is totally false.

-3-

10. There is no cause of action to file this suit, the plaintiff

cannot file such suit against this defendant. If at all he
was aggrieved by the act of defendant No. 1 and 2, them
the plaintiff ought to have taken a legal course to file a
suit for specific performance against the defendant No.1
and 2 for an alleged agreement of sale.

11. Without prejudice what is stated above, it is submitted

that, this defendant is a bonafied purchaser of the suit
land for a valuable consideration. As a prudent man this
defendant before purchasing the suit land verified all
necessary documents like record of rights and also a
Regd. Cancellation deed dated: 06/04/2018 after going
through all these documents he purchased the suit land
and got the possession of it. This defendant cannot be
called as the Co-conspirator to defeat the agreement of
sale and also creating a deed dated: 06/04/2018, which
according to the plaintiff was a concocted one.

12. This defendant submits that, since he is a bonafied

purchaser, his title, possession and interest got a legal
protection under law. Further it is submitted that, from
going through the prayers made by the plaintiff, one
cannot understand, how the plaintiff would succeed in
getting a decree of injunction against this defendant,
when he has a legal document and has a legal right to get
entered his name, unless a declaration is sought for
 cancelation of sale deed dated: 20/04/2018, the plaintiff
suit does not survive. Further it is to be noted that, the
entire case of the plaintiff is based upon an alleged
agreement of sale, the plaintiff instead of filing a suit for
specific performance against the defendant No. 1 and 2
and this defendant can be chosen as one of the parties to
that suit, if he so desires. The plaintiff without taking the
proper and appropriate remedy has chosen to file this
suit, just to harass this defendant, who is a bonafied
purchaser paid huge consideration amount and got the
possession under a valid and legal document.
Interestingly the plaintiff has not sought for any relief
against the defendant No.1 and 2. This act of plaintiff

-4-

amounts to be an abuse of Court process and he may not

be permitted to misuse this forum to harass this
defendant. Therefore it is submitted that the suit of the
plaintiff be dismissed with heavy cost.

13. The prayer made in the suit as well as in the I.A No. 1
is one and the same, hence allowing the I.A No. 1 amounts
to be decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, when the suit
itself is not maintainable, under the law, so entertaining
any interim application is uncalled for. Therefore it is
submitted that the suit of plaintiff is dismissed with
compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Place: BIJAPUR

Date: 10/12/2018 Defendant No.3

Herein I Nooruddin S/o

Abdulmunag Bagawan/Defendant No.3 do hereby state
that the contents of above paras are read over in
language known to me and same are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, belief and information.
Place: Bijapur.

Date: 20/09/2017 Defendant No.3

Filed in the Court on: 00/12/ 2018

Advocate for Defendant No.3

S.S.INAMDAR