1

District: Hooghly In the Court of the Civil Judge

(Senior Division) at
Serampore

Title Suit No.159 of 2023

KCB (Krishna Chandra Bhattacharjee Janakalyan

Trust) Represented by Smt. Tanuja Mukherjee,
wife of Anjan Bhattacharjee, Business Secretary,
residing at 41/13, A.C. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-
700057.
- Plaintiff
-Versus-
1) St. Stephens School Dankuni, represented by
their Principal, Sourav Malakar, son of Rev.
Brojen Malakar, having his office at Kalachara,
Dankuni, Hooghly, PIN: 712707
2) St. Stephens School Dum Dum, represented by
their Secretary of Governing Body of schools and
also Secretary of Barrackpore Diocesan
Education Society, Mr. Sukalyan Haldar having
his office at 11, RBC Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-
700028
3) Rtd. Revd. Subrata Chakraborty, Bishop,
Barrackpore Diocese, residing at 86, Middle
Road, Kolkata- 700120
- Defendants
Written Statement on behalf of the defendants nos.1&2

The abovementioned defendants state as follows:-

1) That the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this instant suit.
2) That the suit is not maintainable in its present form and the same is also barred
by the Principle of Estoppel, acquiescence and principles of natural justice.
3) That the instant suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4) That the instant suit is barred by the laws of limitation and the same has been
filed upon suppression of material facts.
5) That the suit is malafide, harassing and based on false and frivolous allegations/
grounds and is devoid of truth.
6) That the instant suit is not maintainable as the same is undervalued.
7) That save and accept what are admitted hereinafter, these defendants denies
each and every allegations made in the plaint and the plaintiffs are put to strict
proof thereof.
8) That the allegations made in paragraph nos.1&2 of the plaint are matters of
 2

record and anything stated contrary to the records of the instant case are denied.
That these defendants further state that the properties mentioned in paragraph 1
of the plaint are not the properties of the plaintiff but the said properties are
personal properties of Anjan Bhattacharjee, Tanuja Mukherjee etc. and not the
absolute ownership of the plaintiff KCB Janakalyan Trust and therefore the suit
at the instance of the plaintiff is not maintainable against the above mentioned
defendants. That the MOU executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 is
not binding and/or legally enforceable against the defendant nos.1&2 as any
breach of clauses if any is enforceable against the new trust formed on the basis
of the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding.
That this defendants deny that the defendant no.2 is to provide the plaintiff
with the rent of the property and the defendant no.1 being in possession of the
schedule property is liable to pay rent as alleged or at all since no privity of
contract subsists between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 in terms of the
MOU dated 6.1.2010 and notarized on 7.1.2010.
9) That the allegations made in paragraph nos.3&4 of the plaint are emphatically
denied by the defendants abovenamed save and accept which are borne out of
the records of the instant case. That the defendants deny that the plaintiff was
indirectly approached by the defendants for taking over the existing school and
expanding the school in a better manner by giving it a new name, affiliation and
making it a sister concern of St. Stephens School Dum Dum as alleged or at all.
That these defendants state that the plaintiff never approached theses defendants
as stated above but on the contrary entered into ‘Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on 6.1.2010 and being duly notarized on 17.2.2010 with
the ‘St. Stephens Group of Schools under the Barrackpore Diocesan Education
Society’ wherein a new trust was built up in the name and style of St. Stephens
Janakalyan Trust’.
That the defendants state that the executants on the basis of clause 3(d) of
the aforesaid MOU formed a new Trust namely St. Stephens Janakalyan Trust
and all the obligations in terms of the MOU have to be performed by the newly
constituted Trust and the aforesaid defendants are no way connected with the
affairs and obligations in terms of the said MOU and for any breach of clauses
the defendants are no way responsible and they have been wrongly impleaded
in the present suit. That these defendants further deny that they undertook to
provide Rs.50.000/- per month and the said occupancy charge shall be
enhanced by 15% after the first five years and by 10% by every three years
thereafter as alleged or at all.
10) That the allegations made in paragraph nos.5,6&7 of the plaint these defendants
deny the allegations anything contrary to the records of the instant case. That it
is further submitted that the defendant no.1 is occupying the suit premises
namely St. Stephens School Dankuni not under the plaintiff and no legal
 3

obligation arise in respect of payment of occupancy charges by the defendant

no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the said plaintiff cannot demand any
occupancy charge as mentioned in the plaint. That the plaintiff has no cause of
action to institute the present suit against the defendant no.1 for recovery of
khas possession for non-payment of occupancy charges from May, 2021 of
Rs.18,97,000/- till April, 2023 as the defendant no.1 is not holding any tenancy
under the aforesaid plaintiff and for any breach of clauses of the MOU the said
defendant no.1 is not accountable but the new trust formed is in terms of MOU
i.e. ‘St. Stephens KCB Janakalyan Trust’ would be the necessary party for
obtaining relief as prayed for as stated in the plaint.
11) That the allegations made in paragraph nos.8&9 of the plaint these defendants
deny the allegations made therein save and except which are not borne out of
the records of the instant case. That it is emphatically denied that any cause of
action arose against the defendant no.1 for non-payment of occupancy charges
in favour of the plaintiff as the said plaintiff is not legally entitled to claim any
occupancy charges on the basis of execution of the MOU between the plaintiff
and the defnednat no.3. That it is further submitted that the MOU would
indicate that any breach of clauses would be upon the newly formed Trust and
the present defendant no.1 has been intentionally impleaded to harass by filing
this frivolous suit.
12) That the allegation made in paragraph no.10 of the plaint is denied by the
aforesaid defendants and it is categorically stated that the instant suit has been
wrongly valued and/or undervalued under the provisions of Court Fees Act.
That as no cause of action has been accrued against the aforesaid defendant
no.1&2 the instant suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff is not maintainable and
should be dismissed with costs.

It is therefore humbly prayed that

Your Honour may be graciously be
pleased to dismiss the instant suit with
costs and/or to pass such further order
or orders as Your Honour may deem
fit and proper.

And for this your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
4