IN THE COURT OF MR.

AKASH MOHAN SINGH,

CIVIL JUDGE-01, DISTRICT SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1249/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARSH KUMAR AND ORS. _______PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
SHASHI RANI & ANR. _______DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

NO.1 & 2.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. At the very outset it is stated that the suit in its present

form is not maintainable. The plaintiffs has not come to
this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the plaintiffs
is guilty of suppression, concealment and
misrepresentations of the true and material facts from this
Hon’ble Court. The plaintiffs is not entitled to any relief
much less any discretionary relief from this Hon'ble
Court. The suit filed by the plaintiff is wrong and
misconceived and is liable to be dismissed forthwith with
compensatory and exemplary costs in favour of the
defendants and against the plaintiffs. Correct facts and
submissions are being stated herein.

2. That the above noted suit is without any cause of action

against the Defendants and based on false and concocted
story made by the plaintiffs and hence the same is liable to
 be dismissed. It is evident that the defendants is in lawful
occupation and in possession of the suit property in
question and the plaintiff is neither in possession nor
having any right, claim or ownership whatsoever in the
suit property therefore the suit of plaintiffs is barred by
law.

3. The present suit of the plaintiffs is motivated and filed

only to achieve her ulterior and oblique motives of
blackmail, extortion and harassing the defendants as the
plaintiff has no interest or locus standi to seek the
injunction in respect of suit property as prayed in the
above captioned suit.

4. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit
as they have no subsisting rights, title or authority of any
kind in the suit property and hence the suit is liable to be
dismissed. That the plaintiffs has filed the present suit with
a sole motive of grabbing the property of the Defendants
by indulging in false and frivolous and unwanted litigation
and hence the present suit is liable to dismissed.

5. That the plaintiffs are also not entitled for any relief
whatsoever for injunction in view of mandatory provisions
as prescribed in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, more
particularly under Section 41 clauses (i) and (j) wherein it
is specifically provided that no person shall be entitled to
any relief of injunction without having any personal
interest. Clearly the plaintiffs has no personal interest in
the suit property therefore also the suit of the plaintiffs is
 barred by law. Further the plaintiffs is also not entitled for
any injunction as the plaintiffs’ own conduct is such which
disentitled himself to the assistance of this Hon’ble Court.
Moreover the plaintiffs has no personal interest in the
matter whatsoever in the present case.

6. That at the outset, it is stated that above noted suit has been
filed on the basis of false, forged, fabricated and concocted
facts as well as on the basis of false, forged, fabricated and
concocted alleged Will of Smt. Prem Wati. It is further
stated that all the claims and allegations levelled by the
Plaintiffs are patently false and hence denied. The above
noted suit is a false in respect of the suit property seeking a
decree of permanent and mandatory injunction. It is stated
that the plaintiffs by way of present suit for permanent and
mandatory injunction are attempting to declare themselves
as the owner of the suit property.

7. That further as per the claim of the plaintiffs themselves

the suit property is 80 sq. yards i.e. 66.88 sq.mtrs. and
therefore the suit property is having market value around
of Rs. 45 Lacs which is beyond the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court. Hence also the above noted suit of plaintiff
is barred by law and is liable to be dismissed. Further the
plaintiffs has not properly valued the suit for the purpose
of jurisdiction and for the purpose of court fees hence also
the above noted suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the
Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the above
captioned matter as same is beyond the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the hon’ble court.
8. The above noted suit is an abuse of the process of law and
not even maintainable at all and is liable to be rejected
outrightly. It is patent that the above noted suit along with
an application filed therein is another attempt of frustrated,
dishonest, deceitful, cunning and scheming Plaintiffs who
is trying to take undue advantage of the hallowed
provisions of law.

9. That the plaintiffs has not approached the Hon’ble court

with clean hands, they are guilty of suppression of material
facts from the knowledge of the hon’ble court and hence
the suit is liable to be rejected.

10. That the plaint is liable to be rejected as it doesn’t disclose

a cause of action.

11. That the plaintiff is neither in constructive possession nor

in joint possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs
aren’t in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs in
order to circumvent the court fees and wrongly presented
in the above captioned suit that the plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit. It is stated that the plaintiffs are
resident of property bearing no. House no. 81, Gali no.4,
Som Bazar Chowk, Laxmi Narayan Mandir Wali Gali,
South Anarkali, Near Lovely Public School, Delhi-110031.
Therefore, the present suit is not maintainable in its present
form.
12. That the plaintiffs cleverly drafted the plaint and concealed
material facts from the Hon’ble Court. The plaintiffs are
not owners of the property, the plaintiffs has a knowledge
that through which the plaintiffs are claiming ownership is
directly or substantially in question in civil suit no.
467/2021 and filling of present suit has led to multiplicity
of suits and above noted suit is liable to be rejected on this
ground.

13. That the aforenoted suit is being filed by the plaintiffs is

not maintainable being barred under section 10 of the CPC
i.e. rule of sub-judice as the matter in issue of the
aforenoted suit is directly and substantially in issue in
previously instituted suit between the same parties filed by
defendant no.1 herein, before the Hon’ble Court of Mr.
Rajesh Kumar ADJ-03 (East) being CS (OS) No. 467 of
2021. Thus, the above noted suit of the plaintiffs be stayed
till the decision of the suit pending in the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court.

14. That the alleged reliefs as claimed in this suit by the

plaintiffs are barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the
defendant no.1 herein in CS(OS) No. 467/2021 before
Hon’ble Court of Mr. Rajesh Kumar ADJ-03 (East) being
CS (OS) No. 467 of 2021 has already filed an application
under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 impleading
Plaintiffs herein, and out of which Application under Order
6 Rule 17 has already been allowed and civil suit is fixed
for arguments on application under order 1 Rule 10 and in
the said suit most likely the application of the defendant
 no.1 will be allowed as impleading parties i.e. plaintiffs
herein are necessary parties and the suit of the plaintiffs
thus deserves to be dismissed as plaintiffs are using arm
twisting method to harass the defendants.

15. That the above captioned matter in the present form i.e.
suit for simplicitor injunction is not maintainable as the
tittle of the suit property is in dispute and matter is sub-
judice, hence the present suit is barred by said provision.

16. That it is the case of plaintiffs that they be provided a

permanent and mandatory injunction to a property which is
already a subject of matter of Civil suit Bearing no.
467/2021. That on top of it, having the knowledge the tittle
of the suit property is in dispute in civil suit no. 467/2021,
the plaintiffs by way of present suit seeking only relief of
simplicitor injunction without any declaration of their tittle
is not maintainable. Also, it is the case of plaintiffs that
they are owner of the suit property by virtue of alleged
Will and that will is in question in civil suit no.467/2021.
Hence, the suit of plaintiff in present form is not
maintainable and should be thrown out as its very
inception.

17. That the two suits, one previously instituted i.e. CS No.
467/2021 and another one above captioned matter, the
issue in subsequent suit is directly and substantially in
issue in previously instituted suit. Also, the Both suits
involves same parties, in addition previous suit is still
 pending before Hon’ble court of Mr. Rakesh Malik, ADJ-
02 which is dealing with previously instituted suit.

18. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground

that the above captioned matter is wasting Court Resources
and there can be a situation of Conflicting decisions and
present suit has also led to multiplicity of suit between the
parties upon same matter in issue between same parties.

19. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed in its present

form as the court from which relief sought is in the form of
simplicitor injunction and the injunction sought of a
property which is already subject matter of a pending suit
without declaration of tittle qua the suit property is null
and void.

20. That the present suit is not maintainable in view that when
the defendants has already raised a cloud over the title of
the plaintiff, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable.
It cannot be said at this stage that the dispute raised by the
defendant No.1 with regard to title is not genuine nor can it
be said that the title of the plaintiff over the suit property is
free from cloud. Also, it cannot be said that the plaintiff
had no knowledge of the issue with regard to title. Hence,
the present suit not maintainable and is liable to thrown at
its very threshold.

21. That the defendant no.1 is sole and absolute owner of ¼ th

undivided share in the suit property as being one of the
legal heir of Late Smt. Prem Wati who died intestate. That
 the plaintiffs has played a mischief and with malafide
intentions has forged and fabricated the Will, hence the
present suit is liable to dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS

1. That the family tree of the plaintiffs and defendants are as

follows:

GAJEY SINGH PREMWATI

(DECEASED) DECEASED ON
06.08.2021

RAJENDRA
ROHILLA SHASHI RANI YASHPAL ROHILLA
LATA RANI

HARSH ROHILLA MONIKA HANUSH ROHAN VERMA SUMIT ROHILLA

2. That around 2015, the husband of the Defendant no.1 was

extremely ill, so he couldn’t work and provide for his
family. Thereafter, defendant no.1 along with her family
including defendant no.2 and son hanush moved to Delhi
in the suit property in order to work and provide for her
 family with daily necessities. Defendant no.1 started to
work in a toy factory at Jhilmill colony.

3. That, as Shashi started living in the property at old

seelampur, she was not welcomed by her siblings and their
children but mother of the defendant no.1 i.e., Smt. Prem
Wati welcomed the defendants and her family and told
everyone that Shashi i.e., defendant no.1 is also a part of
family and have every right in the suit property and she
will not go anywhere. But Frequent quarrels among the
children of the premwati and conspiracy among Rajendra,
Yashpal, Lata (siblings of defendant no.1) to oust the
defendant no.1 from the property was commenced which
was evident from the conducts of siblings of defendant
no.1.

4. In furtherance to it an arrangement was done and on the

pretext of showing love towards her mother everyone
relinquishes their 1/5th share in the property in favor of
mother vide relinquish deed dated 23.11.2016 registered at
SUB REGISTRAR-IVb Vivek Vihar vide registration No.
8018 in Book no.1, Volume no. 935 which they inherited
from their father Late Sh. Gajey Singh upon his death,
making her sole and absolute owner of the property.

5. That around 2019, due to old age incapacity and being

constant bed ridden and due to illnesses, she couldn’t
handle herself and her family and disputes between the
family members decided to shift the siblings of defendant
no.1 to new place. Hence, remaining property also be
 transferred to their mother out of love and affection all the
siblings relinquished their rights in the remaining portion
of the suit property in favor of their mother vide
relinquishment deed dated 04.07.2019 Registered at SUB
REGISTRAR-IVb Vivek Vihar vide registration No. 5112
in Book no.1, Volume no. 1924 and new property was
purchased in the name of the Smt. Prem Wati at South
Anarkali. Hence, the plaintiffs and Rajendra rohilla,
Yashpal rohilla moved to new property situated at south
Anarkali. The defendants and lata rani kept residing in the
suit property. The mother Smt. Prem Wati used to reside in
both properties as per her connivence.

6. The siblings (Rajendra rohilla, Yashpal rohilla) and their

children through Lata rani who was residing in the suit
property starting harassing defendant no.1 and her
daughter and son in order to oust her from the suit property
and kept saying “tujhe toh me niklva kr dam lungi”.

7. In addition, there were many occasions when the sibling of

the defendant no.1 tried to oust defendant no.1 from the
property (cutting water supply, cutting electricity supply,
constant quarrel with tenants) in order to grab hold of the
estate of premwati as she had no mental capacity to
understand any of the malafide intentions that the siblings
and their children were manifesting against Defendant no.1
and her family.
8. That around 2019, due to fear to be removed or oust from
the property at seelampur, Shashi rani filed a civil suit
bearing no. 1284 of 2019 for permanent injunction.

9. That when premwati got the knowledge about the civil suit
bearing no. 1284 of 2019 for permanent injunction and
understood that her daughter i.e., defendant no.1 is being
threatened from her siblings who are trying to oust the
Shashi from the property decided to take stand in favor of
defendant no.1. On 19.02.2020 when court was hearing
arguments on the said matter on application under order 39
rule 1 & 2, Premwati decided to settle the matter and on
request and in view of her old age, the hon’ble court
referred the parties to mediation center for the same day
and matter was settled vide mediation settlement dated
19.02.2020. It is most important to know that Rajendra
rohilla who was not a party to the above noted suit was
asked by Premwati to sign the settlement deed as she knew
that he might threaten to oust Shashi (defendant no.1) from
the suit property again, behind her and might try to usurp
the whole property after her. After the said settlement
pandemic occurred and on Subsequent dates in civil suit
bearing no. 1284 of 2019 the statement of the parties was
not recorded in the court. But, Continuous harassment and
torture by the siblings of Shashi rani continued.

10. That Since 2020, the health of premwati started

deteriorating day by day. After the settlement Mr.
Rajender Kumar, Mr. Yashpal and Ms. Lata Rani kept on
inducing Smt. Premwati, when she was alive, and
 instigated her against the Defendants to oust the
defendants from the suit property. Smt. Premwati being
old and suffering from hypertension and diabetes
succumbed to the pressure of her 3 children on 06.08.2021.

11. That Due to the continuous harassment and torture

including the attempt by the Mr. Rajender Kumar, Mr.
Yashpal and Ms. Lata Rani Mr. Harsh Kumar, Mr. Sumit
Rohilla, Mr. Rohan Verma to disconnect the water
connection of the property of the defendants when the
defendants made a PCR call and prevented any untoward
incident. Therefore as the accused persons are trying to
dispose of the property defendant no.1 filed a suit for
partition on 01.10.2021 civil suit bearing no. 467/2021
against her siblings.

12. That when the defendants therein filled the written

statement in the suit for partition, they filed an alleged Will
dated 12.06.2021 whereby the estate of premwati was
bequeathed in favor of children of Rajendra rohilla,
Yashpal rohilla, and lata rani to the exclusion of children
of Shashi rani whom the premwati loved the most as
hanush s/o Shashi was a dependent being suffering from
mental illness.

13. That the forged Will is manifestation of evil of the siblings

of defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs herein in order to oust
the defendant no.1 from the suit property.
 14. That the plaintiffs upon which rely their tittle of the suit
property is forged, fabricated one in furtherance to their
criminal conspiracy to oust defendant no.1 and 2 from the
estate of PremWati.

15. That the defendant no.1 herein in Civil suit bearing no. 467
of 2021 had filed an Application under order VI Rule 17
along with Order I rule 10, impleading the plaintiffs herein
and to declare will null and void and challenged the said
Will dated 12.06.2021. That Hon’ble court of Mr. Rajesh
Kumar Vide order dated 12.12.2022 was pleased to Allow
application under order VI Rule 17 of the Plaintiff therein
and dismissed the Application under order VII Rule 11 of
the Defendant therein (siblings of defendant no.1). The
said matter is now fixed for Arguments on Application
Under Order I Rule 10 impleading plaintiffs herein as
defendants being necessary parties.

16. That during the pendency of said applications and in order

to impose multiplicity of litigation upon defendants they
filed the present suit as a arm twisting technique.

17. That the above captioned suit is nothing but piece of

garbage which should be thrown at its very inception.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1. That the contents of para no.1 of the suit are wrong, false,
concocted and hence denied in toto. It is emphatically
denied that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and in
 possession of the property bearing plot no. 9/4905, Gali
no.1 Old Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar, East Delhi. It is
denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit
property. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 and
defendant no.2 are mother and daughter. It is submitted
that the defendants are the owners of ¼th undivided share
in the suit property and are in physical possession of the
suit property.

2. That the contents of the para no.2 of the suit are wrong,
false and hence denied in toto. It is wrong and denied that
the defendant no.1 is the maternal aunt (Bua ji) of the
plaintiffs. It is wrong and hence denied that the defendants
are residing in the suit property as a licensee having
permissive possession. It is further denied that the
defendants have no share, right, tittle or interest in the said
property. It is humbly submitted that defendant no.1 is the
paternal aunt (Bua) of the plaintiff no.1 and 2 and maternal
aunt (mausi) of plaintiff no.3. It is further submitted that
the defendant no.2 is the daughter of the defendant no.1
and sister of the plaintiffs. It is humbly submitted that the
defendants are residing and in possession of the suit
property as an owner of 1/4th undivided share of the suit
property.

3. That reply to the brief facts of the case as iterated are as

follows:
a. That the contents of the para no.3(a) need no reply
as the suit property was owned by the father of the
 defendant no.1 and grandfather of defendant no.2
i.e., Late Shri. Gajey Singh.
b. That the contents of the para no.3(b) are admitted to
the extent that after the death of Late Shri. Gajey
Singh on 03.10.2009 leaving behind the following
legal heirs.
S.No. Name Of Class I Legal Relation With
Heir Deceased
1. Smt. Prem Wati Widow
2. Shri Rajender Kumar Son
3. Ms. Shashi Rani Daughter
4. Shri Yashpal Kumar Son
5. Ms. Lata Rani Daughter

And rest of contents are not factually correct, thus

rest of the contents are denied. It is submitted that
by virtue of not one but two relinquish deeds one
dated 23.11.2016 and another dated 04.07.2019 Smt.
Prem Wati became the sole and absolute Owner of
the said property. It is humbly submitted that the
contents under the head brief facts be read as part
and parcel of present para under reply and same are
not repeated for the sake of brevity.
c. That the contents of Para 3(c) are wrong, false hence
denied. It is submitted that by virtue of not one but
two relinquish deeds one dated 23.11.2016 and
another dated 04.07.2019 Smt. Prem Wati became
the sole and absolute Owner of the said property. It
is humbly submitted that the contents under the head
brief facts be read as part and parcel of present para
 under reply and same are not repeated for the sake
of brevity.

d. That the contents of para 3(b) are wrong, false,

untrue, fallacious, inaccurate, fictious, concocted,
fabricated, plotted, hatched, hence emphatically
denied in toto. It is denied that Smt. Prem Wati
During her lifetime executed a Will Dated
12.06.2021 which later on got registered in sub
registrar office on 07.10.2021 as registration
no.1206, book no.3, volume No. 1276 on pages 191-
198 registered on 07.10.2021 in the office of sub
registrar of Geeta Colony, Delhi. It is further denied
that Smt. Prem Wati bequeathed the said property in
favor of the plaintiffs herein to the exclusion of her
other legal heirs. It is not denied that Smt. Prem
Wati later on died at Delhi on 06.08.2021 rest of the
contents are wrong and hence denied. It is wrong
and denied that Smt. Prem wati died leaving behind
the following legal heirs:-

Denied legal Heirs Relation With

Deceased Smt. Prem
Wati
Shri Sumit Rohilla S/O GRANDSON
Shri Yashpal Kumar
Shri Rohan Verma S/O -DO-
Ms. Lata Rani
Shri Harsh Kumar S/O -DO-
Shri Rajender Kumar
 It is denied that the by virtue of the said Will the
plaintiffs herein i.e. Shri Sumit Rohilla , Shri Rohan
Verma, and Shri Harsh Kumar become the sole and
absolute owner of the property as a whole.

It is submitted that Smt. Prem Wati died intestate

leaving behind following legal heir:

S.No. Name Of Class I Relation With

Legal Heir Deceased Smt.
Prem Wati
1. Shri Rajender Son
Kumar
2. Ms. Shashi Rani Daughter
3. Shri Yashpal Kumar Son
4. Ms. Lata Rani Daughter

Hence, the defendant no.1 is the sole and absolute

owner of the 1/4th undivided share of the estate of
Late Smt. Prem Wati as well as in the suit property.
The alleged will is manifested with evil. The alleged
will is forged and fabricated. The alleged will is a
manifestation of criminal conspiracy hatched by the
plaintiffs and their parents, siblings of defendant
no.1 in order to oust the defendants from the suit
property.

4. That the contents of para 4 is a concocted, wrong, false,

hence denied in toto. It is denied that the defendants are
the permanent resident of Khurja District Bulandshahar,
Uttar Pradesh and settled with her family. It is denied that
defendants were allowed to reside on the third floor of the
suit property as licensee only for a short period of time so
that defendants could get her daughter married peacefully
and comfortably. It is further denied that after few months
from her daughter marriage, she left her husband and start
residing in the suit property. It is empathically denied that
late Smt. Prem wati asked her to vacate the said property
and told them to go back to her property bearing no.119,
Radha Krishan, Khurja, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh,
203131. It is denied that Despite several request made by
late Smt. Prem Wati she constantly used derogatory
language and misbehaved with her mother and continued
to remain in the possession of the suit property in the 3 rd
Floor shown as green in the site plan Attached. It is
humbly submitted that the defendants are permanent
residence of the suit property residing in the premises
before 2015. It is summitted that the defendants were
living in the suit property with her husband Late Shri.
Karan Veer who died in the suit property itself. That
during the year 2015, the husband of the defendant no.1
and father of defendant no.2 was extremely ill.
Consequently, he was not in position to provide for his
family and hence, the defendants along with Shri. Karan
Veer came back to delhi and in order to fulfil their daily
needs the defendant no.1 started working in the toy
manufacturing factory and was living in a rented place in
Bihari colony. Subsequently, the mother of the defendant
no.1 i.e. Smt. Prem wati on several occasions asked her
daughter to start living with the family at the suit property.
But the defendant no.1 denied several times and mother of
the defendant no.1 used to say that the suit property
belongs to her as well like it belong to Ms. Lata Rani, she
used to tell to the defendant no.1 that after her death, one
fourth of the property will devolve upon defendant no.1.
The defendant no.1 and her family started residing in the
suit property with her extended family which includes
plaintiffs and their parents as well as Prem Wati. But this
decision of the Smt. Prem Wati wasn’t welcomed by her
sons i.e. Sh. Rajendra Kumar Rohilla, Yashpal Rohilla and
her daughter Ms. Lata Rani. Then, the sons told their
mother to ask defendant no.1 to leave the property and
same was rejected by the mother stating that she is my
daughter and she will not be leaving as she has the equal
share in the suit property. Subsequently, the portion of the
property bearing no. 9/4905, Gali no.1, East Old
Seelampur, Delhi-110031 was Relinquished Vide
relinquishment deed dated 23.11.2016 registered at SUB
REGISTRAR-IVb Vivek Vihar vide registration No. 8018
in Book no.1, Volume no. 935 in favor of the mother by all
the sons and daughters of the Smt. Prem Wati and was
sold. The sale proceeds of the sold part property were used
to buy another property in Anarkali whereby the sons of
the Smt. Prem Wati and their sons (Grand Sons of Smt.
Prem Wati) i.e. plaintiff herein started residing thereof. It
is further submitted that defendant no.1 and 2 at no point
of time was licensee in the suit property but were living the
suit property and are living in the suit property as the
owners of the ¼ undivided share in the suit property. It is
further reasserted that at no point of time the Smt. Prem
 Wati asked the defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 to vacate
the suit property. It is reasserted that the relation of the
Shri. Prem Wati and the defendant no.1 was close,
emotional and caring towards each other. The question of
using derogatory language and misbehaving with her
mother is a far fetch story crooked up by the plaintiffs.

5. That the contents of the para no.5 are fugazi, wrong, false,
crooked up, delusive, distorted, unfounded, flawed and
hence denied in toto. It is denied that the defendants
constantly using derogatory language towards her mother
and her brothers and not paying an amount of 7,00,000
(Seven Lakh Rupees only). It is denied that such sum was
borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff
grandmother/mother for defendant no.1 daughter marriage
despite repeated requests made by Late Smt. Prem Wati. It
is wrongly submitted in this regard, and hence denied that
grandmother of plaintiffs and mother of defendant no.1
i.e., late Smt. Prem Wati issued a notice in the newspaper
Vide Nav Bharat Times dated 05.01.2020
debarred/expelled the defendants from her movable and
immovable property. It is humbly submitted that the said
notice in the newspaper never issued by mother of the
Defendant no.1. It is nefarious act of Mr. Yashpal Rohilla,
father of Plaintiff no.2 who in furtherance of their greater
conspiracy to oust the defendants published the said notice
in the newspaper. Be as it may be said newspaper notice
doesn’t oust the defendants from their rightful share in the
estate of Smt. Prem Wati. Furthermore, during that period
the mother i.e., Smt. Prem Wati was bed ridden and
 couldn’t perform her daily duties all by herself. That the
said newspaper notice is nothing but a step further in their
larger conspiracy. It is humbly submitted that no amount
was given to defendants by their mother.

6. That the contents of para no.6 are correct to the extent that
the plaintiffs had sent a legal notice dated 24.05.2022
through their counsel, rest of contents are emphatically
denied in toto. It is humbly submitted that the contents of
the reply dated 30.05.2022 of the said notice dated
24.05.2022 be read as part and parcel of present para and
same are not reproduced for sake of brevity.

7. That the contents of para no.7 are wrong, false, and hence
denied in toto. It is denied emphatically that after the
demise of Smt. Prem Wati, by virtue of the will executed
by her, the plaintiffs become the sole and absolute owner
of the property in dispute. It is further denied that they had
requested the defendants to vacate the premises but for no
reason or the other she delayed the matter and denied
vacating the property. It is denied that the plaintiffs
terminated the license of the defendants to remain in
occupation and possession of the suit property. it is denied
that the license of the defendants was orally terminated in
the month of November 2021 as such her occupation and
possession of the suit premises since last few years. It is
not denied that defendant no.1 during the lifetime of Smt.
Prem Wati had already relinquished all her rights, tittle,
and interest in the property in favor of her mother Smt.
Prem Wati. It is humbly submitted that after the demise of
 Smt. Prem Wati inherited the rights, tittle, and interest in
the suit property as well in the estate of Smt. Prem Wati. It
is denied that no right is developed upon the defendants. It
is humbly submitted that the contents under the head brief
facts be read as part and parcel of present para under reply
and same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

8. That the contents of para no.8 are wrong, hence denied in

toto. It is denied that ever since November 2021 the
plaintiffs has regularly been asking the defendants to
vacate and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the
suit but despite all their requests the defendants has failed
to vacate the premises. It is denied that the defendants have
no right, whatsoever, to transfer, sell the suit property,
create any third-party interest in the suit property, in any
manner. It is denied that the defendant is allowed to do so,
irreparable loss injury would be caused to the plaintiffs. It
is denied that the plaintiffs have in favor a very good case
on the merits. It is further denied that the balance of
convenience is also in favor of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants. It is also denied that the irreparable loss
and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs in case reliefs
prayed for are not granted in favor of the plaintiffs.

9. That the contents of para no.9 are wrong, false hence

denied in toto. It is denied that the plaintiffs have no other
alternate efficious remedy available except to file this
present suit. It is denied that it has become necessary that
the defendants, his heirs, successors and/or his agents, be
restrained from selling, disposing or creating third party
 interest in the said property. It is humbly submitted that it
has become necessary that the Plaintiffs, his heirs,
successors and/or his agents, be restrained from selling,
disposing or creating third party interest in the suit
property as well as if they are not restrained from selling,
disposing or creating third party interest irreparable loss
and injury would be caused to the defendants.

10.That the contents of the para no.10 are wrong, false, hence
denied in toto. That it is denied that the cause of action for
filling of the present suit first arose on dated 19.12.2019,
when the defendants had filed a suit against late Smt. Prem
Wati and further denied that the cause of action also arose
when Smt. Prem Wati issued a notice in the Newspaper
Vide Nav Bharat Times Dated 05.01.2020 disease the
defendants from her movable and immovable property. it
is also denied that the cause of action also continued when
during her lifetime Smt. Prem Wati Despite all odds,
misbehaviors, and misdeeds of the defendants allowed her
to continue to remain in permissive possession of the suit
property solely due to the reason that whereabouts of her
daughter marriage and her love and affection for the
children of her. It is again denied that the cause of action
further arose when Smt. Prem Wati executed will deed in
favor of the plaintiffs regarding the suit property. it is also
denied that the cause of action also arose when the
plaintiffs terminated the license of the defendants to
remain in occupation and possession of the suit property
become unauthorized. It is further denied that the cause of
action further arose on dated 09.10.2021 when the
 defendants filed a suit for partition and injunction against
the plaintiffs’ father and other legal heirs of late Smt. Prem
Wati regarding the suit property. It is also denied that the
cause of action further arose when the defendants started
threatening the plaintiffs to illegally and unlawfully
transfer, alienate and part with possession, induct some
else and/or create any third-party interest in the suit
property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. It is also denied
that the Cause of action further arose on dated 24.05.2022
when the plaintiffs sent a legal notice through his counsel,
informing the defendants that her license has been revoked
by plaintiffs from immediate effect and called upon the
defendants to vacate the suit property. it is further denied
that the cause of action further arose when counsel for the
plaintiffs has received a false and frivolous reply of dated
30.05.2022. it is denied that the cause of action is recurring
one in as much as the defendants have not vacated the
premises in dispute and retaining the possession thereof as
unauthorized occupant. It is humbly submitted that the
contents under the head brief facts be read as part and
parcel of present para under reply and same are not
repeated for the sake of brevity.

11.That the contents of para no.11 are wrong, hence denied

except specific admission and specific denial. It is not
denied the suit property is situated in Shahdara, also
defendants reside and works for gain in Shahdara. It is
denied that cause of action arose in Shahdara and has been
arising continually at Delhi. It is not denied that this
hon’ble court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try,
 and decide the present suit. It is stated that this hon’ble
court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
issues in the present suit as the plaintiffs are not in
possession of the suit property and as well as value of suit
property is more than that of pecuniary jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble court and present suit is not maintainable in its
present form.

12.That the contents of para no.12 are wrong, false, hence

denied in toto. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiffs
have not affixed appropriate court fees.

That prayer clause of the present suit is highly misconceived,

uncalled for, false, wrong, filled with malafide intentions,
consequently denied in toto. It is stated the plaintiffs are not
entitled to the alleged reliefs and the aforenoted suit of
the plaintiffs deserves dismissal.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, in view of the preliminary objections/submissions
and reply on merits, the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with
exemplary cost in favour of the answering defendants and against
the plaintiffs.
Pass such other or further orders which this Hon’ble Court deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour
of answering defendant in the interest of justice.

DEFENDANT NO. 1
 DEFENDANT NO. 2
THROUGH
KSHITIJ MATHUR & KAVIT KAUSHIK
ADVOCATES
FOR WHITE HORSE LAW FIRM
COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENDANTS
CHAMBER NO. 755 WESTERN WING,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI-110054
[email protected]
[email protected]
PH: 9876546372, 7838062490
Date: 20.12.2022
Place: New Delhi

IN THE COURT OF MR. AKASH MOHAN SINGH,

CIVIL JUDGE-01, DISTRICT SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1249/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARSH KUMAR AND ORS. _______PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
SHASHI RANI & ANR. _______DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Smt. Shashi Rani W/o Sh. Karan Veer Singh aged
about 52 years R/o H.no. 9/4905, Gali No. 1, Old Seelampur,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -110031, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That the deponent is complainant in the aforesaid suit and
is well conversant with the facts and the circumstances of
the case thus competent to swear this affidavit before this
Hon'ble Court.
2. That the deponent says that the accompanying written
statement has been drafted by my counsel on my
instruction and I have understood the contents of the same
as the same are true and correct and same may be read as
part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not
reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on 20th December, 2022 that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therein.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF MR. AKASH MOHAN SINGH,
CIVIL JUDGE-01, DISTRICT SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1249/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARSH KUMAR AND ORS. _______PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
SHASHI RANI & ANR. _______DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Ms. Monica Rani D/o Sh. Karan Veer Singh aged
about 30 years R/o H.no. 9/4905, Gali No. 1, Old Seelampur,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi -110031, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:
1. That the deponent is complainant in the aforesaid suit and
is well conversant with the facts and the circumstances of
the case thus competent to swear this affidavit before this
Hon'ble Court.
2. That the deponent says that the accompanying written
statement has been drafted by my counsel on my
instruction and I have understood the contents of the same
as the same are true and correct and same may be read as
part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not
reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on 20th December, 2022 that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therein.
DEPONENT