BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

J.D.I MUNSIF SIWAN DISTRICT SIWAN

CASE NO. 68 OF 2002

1. Mrs Kalavati Pathak

W/o Mr Paras Nath Pathak

Resident of village hasua,

Police station Navtan,

Currently resident of Mohalla Malviya Nagar

police station (M) District Siwan.

2. Sanjay Pathak

S/o of late Mrityunjay Pathak,

Resident of village sevtapur police station Marwa,

Presently at Parasnath Pathak mohalla,

Malviya Nagar Mahadev police station Siwan (M) district. …Plaintiffs

1. Mrs Brijkumari Devi

W/o Shri Parasnath shahi village

Padri police station, Siwan (Mt)

District Siwan. …Defendant

The plaintiffs above submits the following-

1. That plaintiff No. 2 is the caretaker and agent of plaintiff No.1 and he
lives at the house of plaintiff No. 1 at Malviya Nagar Mahadeva and
carries out the work of plaintiff No. 1 and her husband Shri Parasnath
Pathak.

2. That Malviya Nagar Mahadev police station siwan (M) District Sivan is
the residential building of plaintiff No.1 which is in account No. 147
Survey No. 446, area 17.1/2 dhur, and the residential building is located
on the first axis Account No. 140 and Survey No. 447.

3. That in survey No.446, the said 17.1/2 dhur land was acquired by the
plaintiff No. 1 from his stridhan money through two sale deeds dated
22.12.1997 from Satyendra Narayan Singh and Vijendra Narayan Singh.
Basically this the land was the land of Ramayan Shah which was
purchased by Sandra Narayan Singh and Vijyendra Narayan Singh
through a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1990 from him.

4. That the said Ramayan Shah executed the sale deed of east 15 Dhur Ash
in survey No. 146 on 12.10.1990 in the name of the defendant and the
defendant later got some rooms constructed in it for her residence.

5. That the said Land of the defendant is situated is situated to the east,
adjacent to the land of Vani S-1.

6. That plaintiff No. 1 lives with her husband in patna and Kolkata and her
house in Malviya Nagar is taken care of by plaintiff No. 2.
7. That the defendant and her family members are very bold and powerful
people. In the month of April 2000, they encouraged on the road axis by
moving north from their land and building and started construction of
the Verandah. Plaintiff No 2 at that time informed the local police and
the police submitted a report under section 144 Cr.Pc.

8. That the Plaintiff No. 2 had opposed the construction of the verandah by
encroaching on the roadby the defendant and by informing the local
police, the process of section 144 was initiated due to which the
Defendant and her husband became angry with the plaintiffs and started
harassing the plaintiffs.

9. That on 14.07.2000, when the plaintiffs were absent at home, the

defendant and her persons encroached upon the eastern portion of the
land owned by plaintiff No. 1 and erected a wall on it and on some
southern portions of that wall molded the roof and merged it with his
rooms.

10.That after the said encroachment, when petitioner S-2 came to the
house, he interrogated the defendant in this regard and also requested
her to break the encroachment. On the request of Plaintiff No. 2 , the
defendant agreed to get the land measured and with her consent amin
was called and got the measurement done. After measurement by Amin,
it became clear that the defendant has encroached upon the eastern
portion of the land owned by plaintiff C-1, measuring 4 feet wide and 55
feet long, and constructed a wall on it. After knowing the details of the
measurer, the defendant had told the plaintiffs that she would soon
remove the encroachment by demolishing the wall. When the defendant
did not remove the encroachment for a few days, a Panchayat was held
regarding this matter and in that Panchayat also the Defendant
promised to remove the encroachment by erecting a wall within 6
months.

11.That the plaintiffs requested the defendant several times to remove the
encroachment but the defendant keep postponing the time by making
 some excuse or the other and finally on 21.04.2002 refused to demolish
the wall and remove the encroachment. Therefore there is a need for
the litigants to come to the court.

12.That the defendant has encroached on 4 feet wide and 55 feet long i.e
three and a quarter miles from the land of plaintiff c-1 and has illegally
constructed a wall on it defendant 2 stated that this action is completely
inappropriate , illegal and unethical. The defendant is bound to demolish
the said Awadh Construction and return the said encroached land of
plaintiff C-1 TO HER.

13.That the original date of the case was 14.07.2000, on which date the
defendant encroached on the disputed Land of plaintiff No. 1 and
constructed a wall on it and 21.04.2002, on which date even on the last
request of the plaintiffs, the defendant had constructed the wall.
Rejected from demolition and removal of encroachment, Mohalla
Malviya Nagar New Basti Mahadeva Police station Siwan (m) District
siwan originated under the jurisdiction of this court.

14.That the disputed land acquired by the defendant is about three and a
quarter acres whose value is approximately Rs 5000 and the same is the
value of this suit also.

The plaintiffs demanded the following relief by providing adequate fee on this
amount of Rs 5000/-

Anotosh

A. Considering the above facts, the defendant's wall should be removed from
the disputed land and plaintiff C-1 should be given possession of it again.

B. The suit settlement should be given to plaintiff No. 1 from the defendant.
C... In the view of the court, if the plaintiff is entitled to 10-1 any other relief,
then it should also be provided to the defendant. Details of disputed land
Located Mohalla Matriviya Nagar New Basti Mahadeva Police Station (0) Siwan
Old Vice 9.
Khatas Sir S 4 feeT widE and 55 feet long land 147-445 which is about three
and a quarter feet away. Crachan A-Road 0 Rajan Srivastava The building
rooms of the format defendant Kalavarti Padak 40- Land of Vadini No. 1 Sanjay
Pathak We, Kalavati Pathak and Sanjay Pathak Yadani, agree that the
information given by us in Kul Jamoon Patrika is true, there is nothing wrong in
it, it is hidden only in the secret. Siwan date April 2002 Kalavati Padvu sajya
pah.
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

J.D.I MUNSIF SIWAN DISTRICT SIWAN

CASE NO. 68 OF 2002

1. Mrs Kalavati Pathak …Plaintiff

Versus

2. Smt brij kumari devi …Respondent

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. That the person against whom the Sudaiyan case has been filed
against Unwan is not legally capable of walking. In 82, it is clear that
the case has been filed for false reasons. BRECR076C23 1946 83 I am
that Mokadama Mudaiyan is Tamadi Motir. 848
2. That the plaintiff, who is arguing internally, does not have any kind of
reality due to which the case is not worthy of being filed. 94400 Now
Dy pramadadai 858 That Maliyat Mokadama Baja Madaiyan has
deliberately given very little. The price of bed quarrel is definitely not
Rs 5000.
The minimum preparation cost at market
rate is Rs 25000.

868 That the plaintiff has paid the court

fee by imposing an arbitrary amount on
the case, it is mandatory for defendant to
pay the court fee on the property of Rs.
25000.

STAMPLATE KI SEA RA 878 That the case

has been filed and the reasons for filing,
stoppage and so on are also to be
rejected. 888 That there is mercury inside
Tyan Mudaiyan. Petition Nalis and
Vasuniyad Mudai No. Mostly he lives in
Siwan and Mudalaham has no idea
whether he is the maid of Mudai No. 2 or
Dai No. 1. hashi 414 That the statement
made in Para No. 2 in Madaiyan does not
deny that it is a non-residential house,
but how much of the area of Daiyan is
Baridagi land and how much area has he
constructed the house on, Para 2 is not
clear.

It happens and neither has Mudalah ever got a

chance to measure his anger. 8108 That the
statement of plaintiff para no. 3 is not a denial
of the application, Nalis. But what kind of
money is it Madai no. Mudala has no
information regarding this land., I am saying
that statement para no. 4 of the application
does not deny the drain but it denies the
statement that construction of some rooms
should be done later. The entire house
opposite Boundy Kochhod was constructed in
1991 itself after Mudalah purchased the land.
CIVIL COURSES, SIWAN STAMPS NOGET
0701231000039777 SEZOZ U More 81 28 That
the statement para no. 5 of the application
does not amount to a denial. haste 31 38 That
the statement and para no. 6 of the
application, Nalis, is denied by Madalah and
Madai has always been ever living in Siwan. 2
out 8148 That statement para no. 07 is denied
by Mudalaah from the application, Nalis.
Madai No. ‘s husband is a very influential
person
He did not want to allow Mudalaah to be in
trouble by using his influence as an excuse for
encroachment. Which was constructed by
Mudallah after measurement. 815) That
statement para no. B petition, Nalin Mudallah
denies. Mudallah is a housewife and her
husband is a teacher who often comes home
from school after school. CIVIL BIHAR
BRECR076023 8168 That statement para no. 9
of the petition is completely denied by
Mudallah that there is no newly built
construction on the area which is said to be
encroached upon by Madaiyan. This part has
been constructed by Mudallah in 1991 itself,
which will become clear just by looking at it.
hash Ach 17 That Mudalah again denies the
statement application, alleged para no. 10. No
Panchayat was ever held in relation to this
alleged encroachment, nor was any
measurement done, nor was any inquiry done
by the Mudaiyan in this matter. The है बस्तु
situation is that long days before the
Mudaiyan purchased the land.
 The house had already been constructed by
Mudalat and the family lived in the same
house, hence no thought of alleged
encroachment arises. 8188 That Hayan Para
30.. Muda completely denies earning it. This
statement and rape has been prepared by
Cause of Action. STAMI 60231000974
BRECROC 11 Oct 2023 110 5.11 That the
statement para no. 12 completely denies the
petition, this statement or filing of the case is
false. 20] This Kanpara No. 12 application
denies any statement except Nala Court
jurisdiction. 2 | That the Mudah denies the
attention given in Para No. hash achr 14
Arjinalit because the market price of this much
land was का बयान मुदईयान given by Rs.
25000. $22} The current situation is that Dalah
Haj Kumari Devi agreed to the Ramayan
trumpet on 125 10. 1990.

She had purchased this land on which she constructed a

complete house in 1991 and started living with her family.
Due to lack of money "Baraka, it came to light that the roof-
was not being constructed, which was opposed by the
community at the time of its construction, there was talk of
road and gradation, but after measurement, it was found to
be correct and finally, after the construction of Baraka,
Badalah got fed up with the destruction. The above has been
brought to the court for the purpose of doing so, while the
court still left 3+ land to the west and got a house
constructed and the family started living there. 8238 That at
the time of construction of the house by Mudalah, the then
land owners Satyendra Narayan Singh and Vijendra Narayan
Singh did not raise any kind of opposition. STA BRECROC510
p 11 O 2023 प्रনिয়ে BIH YOUR TEETH FEE 8248 That after the
land was dug up by the Mudah, the boundary was watered
on three sides and the house was, constructed leaving three
feet of land on the western side for ventilation. Madaiyaan is
greedy in nature. released by dal 3 Want to grab the land. 25
That it is clearly evident from the above circumstances that
Mudaiyan has never had any connection or concern with the
Raji dispute nor is Daiyanxi entitled to get Dadri. CIVIL
Therefore, by filing a statement, Mandalah requests that the
case be dismissed and Mandalah be sent to the court to be
sent to court

4 Brij Kumari Devi always declares that in this statement,

Tahriri 188104 Haja's Kal Bhajan is our knowledge along with
that information and nothing has been hidden in it.
Mosiwan Brij Kumari Devi
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

J.D.I MUNSIF SIWAN DISTRICT SIWAN

CASE NO. 68 OF 2002

3. Mrs Kalavati Pathak …Plaintiff

Versus

4. Smt brij kumari devi …Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

responded Affidavit CIVIL C BRECR07602 BIHAR C I, Mrs. Kalavati Pathak, wife

of Mr. Parasnath Pathak, resident of village Hasua, police station Navtan,
present resident of Mohalla Malviya No. Mahadeva police station Siwan,
Gufasal district Siwan, declare on oath as follows:: 11 Oct 202 FEE

That I am the plaintiff 101 in the above suit, I swear that the entire facts of the
suit are correct to the best of my knowledge and information and there is
nothing wrong or hidden in it.

‘Kalawati Pathak’— 1- Mrs. Kalavati Pathak –

Plaintiff, I declare that the entire contents of the affidavit mentioned above
are correct and there is nothing wrong or hidden in it.

Place – Siwan

Date 1 April 2002

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE

J.D.I MUNSIF SIWAN DISTRICT SIWAN

CASE NO. 68 OF 2002

Mrs Kalavati Pathak …Plaintiff

Versus

Smt brij kumari devi …Respondent

Plaintiff Application under CPC Order 26

Rule 10 under Civil Procedure Code

1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit to obtain the
relief of the defendant by removing the wall from the
subsequent settlement agreement and taking possession of
it.
2. That the above circumstances involve a question of
scientific investigation, which, in the opinion of the Court,
cannot be easily proved before the Court.
3. That in the interest of justice, the commission of a survey
expert commissioner should be reinstated from the court for
scientific investigation of the said incident with instructions
to him to investigate such question and submit its report to
the court.
4. That any informed survey be conducted as per the order of
the Plaintiff Court. Ready to deposit the commissioner's fee.
Therefore, it is requested to Sir that after the above
mentioned, for scientific investigation, an all-knowing
commissioner should be appointed to investigate the
encroachment and submit its report to the court along with
the trace map, after incurring the expenses of Plaintiff, the
commission should be reinstated. It is requested that Hakarsi
should be of Plaintiff.

syatkara to be scientifically explored complete details

Malviya Nagar, Nai Basti, Mahadeva, Siwan, Police Bawake
Mauza/Mohalla Hall Station Siwan Mahadeva O.F., Old 'Old
Ward No. 9. New Ward No. Siwan Muff District Siwan.
Municipal Council, Siwan. Chauhadi rakwa survey no. account
number A- Road Brick wall 4 feet wide x 55 feet long (about
three and a quarter feet) 446 147 D. Rajan Srivastava
defendant tree of Pu Kumari Devi's building encroached wall
P- Remaining land of case No. 1 sector Question whose
report the survey knowledgeable commissioner has to
submit to the court along with the trace map - Qet 2023 Has
the 04 feet wide and 55 feet long land in the eastern part of
the land bearing Sayatkarari which bears Vadini No. 1 been
encroached upon and a wall has been constructed on it?
Question no.-1
3. What is the length, width and height of the brick wall
and what is its possible physical condition? Question
no Mr. Commissioner, who is knowledgeable about
the survey, will you please 'Show also submit your
report as per your opinion, which is necessary in the
interest of A justice? Question No. 3. Sanjay Pathak I,
Sanjay Pathak, plaintiff no. 2 vo Karinda Mein Janib
Mudaiya no Kalavati Devi, agree that the entire
content of this application is correct best of my
knowledge and information and nothing has been
hidden.
 Court First Munsif Mokam Siwan
District Siwan
Title case number 68/2002 AD

Smt. Kalavati Pathak, etc. Plaintiffs, Defendants VS.

Bajkumari Devi' Mahashay, Tardid cum Objection Meen Jaan,
Application for the defendant, Plaintiff Maur- 07.04.022, is
requested as follows:- 1. That the statement and statement
with which the application has been given b the plaintiff no. 2
under Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
contrary to the law and is not worthy of approval, rather it is
worthy of rejection. Is. 2. That Karinda plaintiff Sanjay Pathak
does not have the legal right to file the above mentioned
application
3. That the application of Karinda plaintiff is given in Order
26 Rule-10, due to which under survey the Commissioner
cannot investigate and the country cannot be From That
Sanjay Pathak does not have the legal right to submit the
above mentioned application.
5. That the application states that the application has been
filed on behalf of the plaintiff While the verification has been
done by Sanjay Pathak.
6. That the application is of a defected party.
7. That the plaintiff's case itself is not maintainable, but the
charge - 07 NIA- D. is of a false nature on the basis of Civil
Procedure Code.
8. That the application mentions the matter of investigating
encroachment, which contains contradictory language. Also,
while paying attention in the interest of justice, it is said that
as part of the satisfaction of the plaintiff's case, Gujja day has
been done to get the boundary wall removed from the
promised land and take possession of the suit no. 1 which is
under trial, that is as per the recommendation. 11 Oct 2023
1.
9.That the plaint of the case has the signatures of both
Kalavati Palak and Sanjay Pathak whereas the above
mentioned application 1 has the signatures of only Sanjay
Pathak.
10. That Plaintiff does not rectify the errors contained in his
plaint and in order to consume the valuable time of the
court, order 26 Rule-1 Applications have been aiven in 10.
11. That the disputed land mentioned in case no. 9 is not a
house, and also On the eastern side of the Chauhaddi, the
rooms of the Mayan opposition building are described.
12. That the four feet wide and fifty five feet long land
belongs to the disputed mouza and land.
13. That until the court decides what kind of encroachment is
~ involved in the suit or not, the application filed by plaintiff
Sanjay Pathak cannot be ordered to be heard. 14. That there
is no land or land at 4055 feet on the spot, but there is a two-
storey house of the applicant-defendant, adjacent to the
house of Wa Dini Kalavati Pathak, to the east, which is
confirmed in para no. 9 of the plaint of Mudaiyan itself. it
occurs. In the interest of justice, it is said that Mudaiyan
deliberately wants to delay the case, whereas evidence of
four witnesses has been taken on Mudaiyan's behalf, in
which Paras Nath Pathak, husband of plaintiff no. 1, said in
para no. 18 of his evidence post. That the defendant has
constructed the verandah after measurement, the nature of
the case becomes clear only by bringing in the evidence of
that measurement and proving it. However, plaintiff's
application is moot - bill of 07.04.022 Dismissed with costs,
except the fact that legal points will be presented at the time
of hearing. Will be done.

Therefore, Sir, it is requested that the plaintiff's unlawful

application No. 077047022 should be dismissed with costs so
that the applicant- defendant can be relieved. Kumari Devi 1.
Brij Kumari Devi, defendant, I swear that the entire
statement of this complaint cum objection is correct and true
to the best of my knowledge and knowledge. None of its
facts are wrong or false. B-Mokam-Siwan, District-Siwan.
Mute Brij Kumari Devi
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE J.D.I (MUNSIF I) SIWAN T.S.-
68/2002 CIS Reg. No.-68/02

Smt . Kalawati Pathak and others..........

VS.
Smt. Brijkumar Devi...... ...Plaintiff

Defendant ISSUES 1. Whether the suit as framed and filed is

maintainable ?
2. Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action to sue?
3. Whether the suit is barred by section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act and law of limitation?
4. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, principle of
estoppel, waiver etc.?
5. Whether the suit is properly valued and court fees paid
thereupon is sufficient?
6. Whether the plaintiff has right title and interest over the
suit land?
7. Whether the defendant has made an encrochment of the
suit land as claimed by the plaintiff?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of
possession after removal of the encrochment?
 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief or reliefs as
claimed for?

Munsif I Siwan
02/03/2019
 Court First Munsif Siwan
TS. No 68/2002 20.9.22

Kalavati Devi Hardiyat Bad Seth

VS
Brij Kumari Devi
Appearance of both the parties was given. The record
presented today is scheduled for order on the plaintiff's
application dated 7.4.22. On behalf of Murchai, his learned
advocate appeared on the previous date and by issuing his
application under Order 26 Rule 10, it was ruled that in this
suit, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of the
defendant by removing the wall from the vacant land and
getting possession and possession of it. has been filed and in
this situation the question of scientific investigation is
involved which cannot be easily proved before the court. In
this situation, it is necessary to reinstate a survey
knowledgeable commissioner and get this question
investigated, hence a survey knowledgeable advocate should
be appointed at the plaintiff's expense. 19-16826 24.8.22 Last
Das-1sheet A reply was filed on behalf of the defendant on
19.5.22 and their learned advocate appeared in the court and
stated that the plaintiff's application is being rejected. This
application has been given by Karinda plaintiff Sanjay Pathak
which is not legally maintainable. Under Order 26 Rule 10,
the Survey Commissioner cannot investigate nor can any
order be given. There is a contradiction in the sequence of
investigation mentioned in the application and that question
will also arise when it is confirmed that encroachment has
taken place. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the
plaintiff filed the application with the intention of plainly
colluding, hence the plaintiff's application should be rejected.
Heard 2.5% of the petitions and observed the applications,
applications, subsequent letters and other available
materials. It appears to the Court that The case is pending
and the trial is going on in which the evidence of those
witnesses has already taken place. The main relief sought by
the plaintiff in his suit is that the defendant's wall should be
removed from the disputed land and the plaintiff T-1 should
be given back its possession. In the light of this relief, the
plaintiff has given his application for the appointment of an
all- knowing advocate, who falls in the category of the
general public and the reinstatement of the Commissioner
cannot be done for the purpose of collecting evidence. The
plaintiff must prove his claim with his evidence. The plaintiff's
application is rejected in the above circumstances. The
plaintiff should bring his evidence. In on 03.11-22.