1

Dist: North 24 Pargnas.

IN THE COURT OF LD. 1 CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVN.), AT BARASAT

Title Suit no, 1427 of 2024

Abdul Rahim Mondal &others
.Plaintiffs
-VS

Smt. Maya Saha & others

.........Defendants

Written Objection filed by the defendant no. 1, 2, 3

against the plaintiffs petition for injunction under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of Civil
Procedure Code.

The defendant no. 1, 2, 3 beg to submit:

1.
That the plaintiff has no cause of action of action for filling the petition for injunction.
The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of such
property which is absolutely possesed by the defendants surrounded by pucca boundary
wall with iron gate.

2 That in fact the plaintiffs have got no legal character nor any locastandy to file such suit
against the defendants.

3. That the petition under objection is not maintainable in its present form and law.

4
That the petition for injunction is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants
making false and fabulous statement as such petition for injunction liable to be
rejected.

5
That the plaintiffis have not come within stipulated period wherein the defendant no. 1to
3 have purchased their property from the real vendors by way of registered deed of sale
sometimes in the year 1982, 2002 and since then they are in exclusive possession in the suit
dag.

6 That the injunction petition is barred under Section 41 of Specific Relief Act.
7 That the plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima facie case. He has neither any
interest nor any shadow of possession in respect of the suit property. The status of the
plaintiffs is absolutely stranger person, he has got no nexus with the schedule of property as
well as with the defendants. The plaintiffs have come with unclean hands and practice fraud
upon the Ld. Court as such the plaintiff has lost his prima facie case. The allege fact as
describe in plaint and in injunction petition is absolutely fabricated and manufactured and
he has filed such suit for the purpose of harassing the defendant and for their wrongful gain.
 2

8 That considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience the plaintiffs are
not entitled to get any relief, balance of convenience and inconvenience are in favour
of the defendants, if any order of injunction is allowed in favour of the plaintiffs in
such case the defendants will seriously be prejudice, on the other hand the plaintiffs
will not be prejudice. The order of injunction has caused serious material loss to these
defendants.

That the injunction petition is supported by an affidavit which is no affidavit in

the eye of law, as it has not specifically been verified as such the Ld. Court would not
take any cognigence on the basis of the said affidavit.

10. That the schedule of property as describe in plaint as well as injunction petition
are incorrect, false, untrue, insufficient, improper as such the plaintiffs would not get
any order in respect of vague schedule of property. Furthermore the suit property is
Pukur in nature whereas the property belong to defendant no. 1 to 3 are Bastu in
nature, therefore there is no similarity between the property of plaintiffs and
defendants.

11. That the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands but they have come with dirty linen
and suppress some fact which would be the cause for rejection of the petition for temporary
injunction and the order of ad-interim injunction has caused undue hardship on the part of
the defendant no. 1 to 3.

12. That the petition under objection is speculative, motivated, harasing, illegal and
wrongful hence it deserves rejection in limini.

13. That the plaintiff has neither any legal character nor any loca standy to file such suit
as well as injunction petition as the suit as well as injunction petition is bad.

14. That save and except those are specifically admitted herein, all the facts, figures and
contention are deemed to be categorically denied, disputed and traversed by this defendant.
15. That the contents made in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6 of the
injunction petition are partly matters of record and rests are firmly denied and disputed by
these defendants. The genealogy or devolution of property as describe in the aforesaid
paragraphs are to be substantiate by the plaintiffs and the defendants merely denied the
devolution as describe the aforesaid paragraphs but they do not know the genealogy of
the plaintiffs as describe herein above. Whenever the defendants could have to know they
have to describe latter on. The defendants have stated that the predecessor of the plaintiffs
whenever transferred their right, title, interest in favour of the Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita
Rani Mondal and Adhir Chandra Mondal therefore the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming
their decree of right, title, interest do not arise. It is very mysterious to note why didthe
plaintiffs have files such suit whenever they know that their predecessor have transferred
their title, so question of inheritance of title do not arise, then it only remain on the part of
the plaintiffs that they have files such suit with a view to make wrongful gain or speculative
gain.
 3

16. That with reference to para 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 of the

falsehood as such denied and disputed by these defendants. injunction petition are deliberate
The defendants could have no
need to reiterated the fact that the mentioned person in
for injunction have had neither any title nor any paragraph 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 of the petition
possession. The plaintiffs have stated that
one Marjina Bibi gifted and transferred by oral heba nama to her son
Abdul Gaffar Mondal
and by such way the share of Abdul Gaffar Mondal has become 3.3309 decimals
and/or the
plaintiffs are in joint possession in respect of the suit property and the property allege to
have belong to daughter of Abdul Ahad Mondal namely Chafirunnecha Bibi sold and
transferred and conveyed her share of land equivalent to 5.8625 decimals are blatant lie
statement. The plaintiffs have stated that Marjina Bibi transferred oral heba in favour of her
son but no date has mentioned and the transfer by Chafirunnecha Bibi to the extent of
5.8625 decimals of land did not whisper the date of such allege transfer. The plaintiffs
making untrue, false, imaginary, fabricated and by way of malafide statement constructed
such petition for injunction which are denied by the defendants in toto.

17. That in response to para 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14 of the injunction petition are
distorted representation as such denied and disputed by these defendants. The plaintiffs
have stated that they have joint possession in respect of the A" schedule property and/or
Abdul Aziz Mondal, Abdul Kader Mondal, Mohiroom Bibi, Rokeya Bibi have 15.925
decimals, 7.7278 decimals and 93 decimals land transferred and conveyed to Sachindra
Nath Mondal and said Sachindra Nath Mondal became owner, if that be so why did they
have filed such suit whenever the predecessor of the vendor of defendant no. I to 3.
Moreover is paragraph 5.11 the plaintiffs admits that Shampa Saha, Krishna Saha, Maya
Saha are the owner of land to the extent of 25.50 satak then why did they have filed such
suit against them. With regard to paragraph 5.12., 5.13, 5.14 of the petition for injunction
have describe some allege fact regarding devolution and genealogy which are not correct
and true but it should be proved by the plaintiffs at the time of hearing the injunction
petition as well as at the time of trial of the suit but it is absolutely false, incorrect, untrue,
malafide and fabricated statement that on 21.11.2024 the defendant no. 1to 3 jointly and
severally with the help of some local hooligans allege to have come to the A" schedule
property and/or trying to take forcible possession of the entire A" schedule property
claiming as absolute owner and/or the plaintiff no. 3 without thinking any alternative lodged
diary in the ECO Park Police Station on 21.11.2024 and/or after knowing such allege
lodging of diary lodged by plaintiff no. 3 against the defendant no. Ito 3 and/or after
knowing such allege fact the defendant no. l to 3 became arrogant and/or threatening
plaintiff no. 3 to implicate several false criminal cases and/or threatened for taking forcible
possession in respect of the suit property and/or the defendant no. I to 3have no right to ask
plaintiffs to deliver possession of the entire A" schedule property while the plaintiffs have
allege to have actual possession andor allege absolute joint possession with the defendant
no. 1to 3 are strongly denied and disputed by these defendants. The defendants on various
occasion in different paragraph of the written objection distinctly stated that the suit
property is the Pukur in nature and the property belong to the defendant no. 1to 3 are Bastu
innature with specificpucca boundary wall and iron gate therefore question of allege threat
by the defendant no. Ito 3 regarding ask for possession to the plaintiffs do not arise. The
defendant no. 1to 3 have/had physical as well as constructive possession in respect of their
respective properties and the defendant no. Ito 3have joint possession with the defendant
no. Ito 3. Onus is upon the plaintiffis to prove each and every statement as describe therein.
 injunction petition
5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 6and 7 of the
That the averments describe in para denied and disputed by these
18. imaginary as such firmly
are downright falsehood, malafide, defendant no. I to 3are moneyed person and/or they
defendants. It is not afact that the have. oblique
social elements and desperadoes and/or they
have relation with local anti the plaintiffs
suit property and/or on 10. 12.2024 they tried tooust activities of
motive tried to grab the allege illegal
from by showing physical and political strength and/or thehoodlums and/or defendant
there local
getting air from allege frock of with
the defendant no. 1to 3 are local antisocial and local goons abuse the plaintiffs
allege
no. 1to 3 with the help of are blatant lie
and threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences the purpose of
filthy languages have to make such untruth
contentions for
statement and the plaintiffs might fact that the plaintiffshave got any need to file
for injunction. It is not a paragraph 5.16
filling such petition The plaintiffs have further stated in
defendant no. 1 to 3. interfering with the
any suit against the men and agents are allege to have
and his
that the defendant no. 1to
3 plaintiffs from the schedule
possession of the plaintiffs and/or dispossessing the may be restrained
peaceful portion thereof and/or they
"C" property or any extremely untruth
"B" & schedule vague, uncertain, exclusive, malafide
property are as
permanently from such
*C" schedule property within the four corners of plaint
allegations. There is no B" & the defendants in
petition but the plaintiffs ask for restrained against
wellas injunction injunction is A"
property. The prayer of the petition for
respect of "B" & "C" schedule absolutely contradictory between the averments of
schedule property therefore it is The schedule of suit
the schedule of suit property.
paragraph 5.16 at page 7 as well as in respect of entire "A"
claim for decree of declaration
property where from the plaintiffs while the said dag 1156 consist
67
schedule property to theextent of entire 67 satak land title, interest to
and the plaintiffs admit that the defendant no. 1to 3 have right,
satak land declaration in their
how could the plaintiffs pray for
the extent of 25.50 satak. If that be so into the contents of
The Ld. Court shall have to look
favour to the extent of 67 satak. made
no. to 3 then how could the plaintiffs
paragraph no. 5.11l belong to the defendant as
extent of 67 satak land. The plaint as well
prayer for declaration in their favour to the
Therefore any truth could not be drawn from
injunction petition is anomalous in all respect.
is bad in all respect and the plaintiffs
the allege fact of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiffs
such suit praying for declaration and
have got no loca standy even legal character to file
harassing, motivated, illegal
permanent injunction. The fabricated, malafide, false, untrue,
to get any
statement of fact should be discarded and the plaintiff shall have no legal way
well as injunction
relief against the defendant by filling false, fabulous and illegal suit as
The petition for
petition. The plaintiff has failed to make out any prima facie case.
injunction is liable to be rejected with sufficient cost.

That the fact of the case is that originally the suit property and other property belong
19.
to Marjina Bibi, Johora Khatun, Abdul Aziz, Robina Bibi, Abdul Khaleque Mondal, Abdul
Bari Mondal, Abdul Kader Mondal, Taherunnessa Bibi and while they were in seized and
possessed such property, Marjina Bibi transferred her right, title, interest in favour of
Sachindra Nath Mondal. Johora Khatun Bibi transferred her right, title, interest in favour of
Sachindra Nath Mondal. Abdul Aziz Mondal transferred her right, title, interest in favour of
Gita Rani Mondal. Rabina Bibi transferred her share to Sachindra Nath Mondal and Abdul
Khaleque Mondal transferred to Adhir Chandra Mondal. The aforesaid purchasers are the
predecessors of the defendant no. 1to 3. The defendants shall have to explain in which date
and year such transfer was made in detail. The defendants have obtained the certified copy
 5

sp

wellas at the time

same shall be submitted at the time of hearing as
of those Such deeds and
of trial of the suit.
transferred the property
previous owners who have not
That furthermore some
of the made a registered
20. some portion of property unsold
but some of the owners
who have remain
was to be explained
of partition which
way of registered deed certified copy of such
registered
deed of partition by no. 1 to 3 have obtained the
hereinafter but the defendant
deed of partition.
Rani Mondal and
defendants Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita no.-1156 under
the
21. That the predecessor of acquired 1lsatak land in respect of Dag
Adhir Chandra Mondal
total also purchased in
aforesaid predecessor of the defendants
Mouza-Hatiara. In addition to Mouza-Hatiara. Dag no.-1155 under Hatiara Mouza is not
the
have
respect of Dag no.-l155
under
suit property herein as such the defendants
Dag no.-|156 is the of the defendants
the suit property but of land purchased by the predecessor
not explained how
much quantum Mondal in respect of Dag
Rani Mondal and Adhir Chandra
Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita
no.-1155.
and wife by relation.
Nath Mondal and Gita Rani Mondal are husband Rani Mondal.
22. That Sachindra of Sachindra Nath Mondal and Gita
is not the relation Rani Mondal and
Adhir Chandra Mondal that Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita
relation it is fact Saha
Whatever may be the property in favour of Krishna
Chandra Mondal jointly sold some part of their registered deed of sale on
Adhir defendant no. 2 by virtue of
Madan Mohan Saha the owner of the
daughter of Saha became
and by such way Krishna
02.07.1982 being deed no.-2673 satak and bysuch deed she has also
Dag no.-1156 area 3
property in respect of suit
which is not the suit property.
purchased 2 satak land in Dag no.-1155
Adhir Chandra
aforesaid Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita Rani Mondal and
That the Maya Saha in
23.
jointly transferred 6 satak of land in favour of defendant no. 1
Mondal again area 2 satak by virtue of
satak and suit Dag no.-1156
respect of Dag n0.-1155 area 4
30.06.1982 and delivered her possession.
registered deed of sale being no.-2672 on
in suit
purchased 19 cottah 15 chittak 19.8 sg. ft.
24. That one Subal Chandra Kundu Mondal, Gita Rani
& 1145 from Sachindra Nath
Dag no.-1156 and other two dags 1155 02.07.1982
of registered deed of sale on
Mondal and Adhir Chandra Mondal by virtue
owner and possessor Subal Chandra Kundu
being deed no.-2675. Thereafter after being
Sampa Saha by virtue of registered deed of
sold 6 satak land in favour of defendant no. 3
delivered her possession. The answering
sale on 10.10.2002 being deed no.-01856 and
right, title, interest which they
defendants have been explaining giving description in their
no.-1156 belong to the defendant
acquired in respect of suit Dag no.-1 156. The suit Dag recorded their name on Govt.
have also
no.-1 to 3 is Bastu in classification of land and they
of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation and since then they
seresta as well as local body
have been paying rent and taxes to the competent authorities.
against the
25. That it is to be noted here that the plaintiffs might have to file suit
their right,
defendants suppressing the material fact that their predecessor had transferred
title, interest and despite knowing such fact order make wrongful gain practice fraud.
 6

spi

title., interest in
plaintiffs have no iota of right, transferred
to it is known to all that the the plaintiffs have not only
addition of Adhir
In
suit dag because the predecessorNath Mondal, Gita Rani Mondal and
respect of the favour ofSachindra purchase from the real
interest property by
their right, title, have got their title nor any
other purchasers have neither anypossessing their
Chandra Mondal, all present plaintiffs
been
speaks that the Ito 3 have
owner which clearly the suit dag. The defendant no. boundary wall and one iron gate
possession in respect of demarcation raising pucca and when
necessary the
with clear to 3 and as
respective property defendant n0. 1 use to enjoy
iron gate is padlock by the enter into their property and suit of
and such
to 3 opening the padlock use
to
3 it is palpably clear that the
to
defendant no. 1
very fact ofthe defendant
no. 1
law says plaintiffs have got no
the while of
the same. From not tenable, non mentioning
plaintiffs are mere declaration declaration is not maintainable and submit that
the file suit for defendant no.-1 to 3
possession but have to possession is fatal, so the
recovery ofkhas tenable. Gita Rani
the prayer for and it is not Sachindra Nath Mondal, Sampa
suit itself is bad in law and fact purchaser of
the favour of
earlier that one ofthe right, title, interest in
26. That it is stated transferred his
transferred some property
in
Chandra Mondal vendors again
Mondal and Adhir said three three persons
no. -3 and the the aforesaid
Saha who is defendant the defendant no.-2 and further no.-1 though the said
Saha defendant
favour of Krishna Maya Saha the 3 have
in favour of another dag but the defendant no. 1to
transferred some property purchase suit dag and
persons might have to oftheir own.
the area of land and suit dag number multistoried building over
specifically describe purchasers with a view to raise have decided to
three comfortable and so they
That the aforesaid financially
development. Accordingly a
27.
they are not
their joint property but agreement for
1 to 3 and
promoter/developer with an between the defendant no.
appoint a entered by and
development agreement was and registered on
development agreement was executed appointed such
...and such .and also they have
.being deed no. registered general
constituted attorney and that effect a
developer/promoter as their
executed and registered. defendants alleging
power ofattorney was also about 2-3 years ago are disturbing the
That the plaintiffs since defendant no. 1
28.
denying their title, for the aforesaid reason the Mondal and
false and fabulous allegation file Title Suit-649 of 2018 against Abdul Khalil
compel to Barasat. Here in this case Abdul
to 3 and others was Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at
Court of
others before the Ld. 1 against the defendant no. Ito 3
plaintiff no. I has filed the present suit
Khalil Mondal being filed Title Suit- 649 of 2018
suppressing that the defendant no. 1to 3 herein have Civil Judge (Jr.
other before the Ld. 1" Court of
herein
present plaintiff no. 1l and principal of law is
against the order of ad-interim injunction. The
at Barasat and has obtained an
Divn.) would have to find that
if there is any suppression of material fact the Ld. Court
such that material fact
have practice fraud and suppressed the
the plaintiffswith some ulterior motive the plaintiffs.
have to be passed in favour of
in such cases no order of injunction would above that the defendant no. 1 to 3 have
29 That furthermore it is mentioned herein
construction over their property and to that
appointed a promoter/developer for raising their
general power of attorney
effect registered development agreement as well as registered .lodged a
namely
were executed and registered. The said promoter/developer
...

no. l to 3 but the plaintiff no. 1

caveat in respect of the property belonged to the defendant
defendant in their
very cunningly did not mentioned the name of the promoter/developer as
others. Herein also the
suit but they have filed suit against the defendant no. l to 3 and
 F2

.being no. -
caveat was lodged on
truth. Such the Ld. 1st
plaintiff impliedly
conceal the at Barasat and before
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
..before the Ld. 1 Court of
Divn.) at Barasat being no.-... stated that they are in absolute
..On

Court of Civil Judge (Sr. have

paragraph the defendants boundary wall and their names have
30. That in earlier raising pucca
property Corporation and
possession in respect of their of Right and Bidhannagar Municipal Therefore
Record competent authorities.
been recorded in L.R. paying rent and taxes to the they are in
accordingly they have been defendant no. l to 3 it distinctly clear that
from the very conduct of
the suit for declaration and
constructive possession. If that be so mere the plaintiff does
physical as well as
so the question of injunction made by
permanent injunction is not
tenable, have got chance
prima facie if it is found that the plaintiffs this
that be consider but here in
not arise because law says injunction petition at best might
in such cases have not made
of success intrial chance of success in trial,
whenever they
got no
case the plaintiffs have
prayer for recovery of khas possession. ownership of the defendant no. 1
to 3 is Bastu
possession and Pukur.
31. That the property under filed by the plaintiffs in
respect of nature of land
present suit is and
in nature whereas the of defendant no. 1 to 3
difference between the property
Therefore there is gulf of
plaintiffs. Chandra Mondal during
Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita Rani Mondal and Adhir Subal
32. That
respect of Dag no.-1145 in favour of
property in
their lifetime transferred their entire have also
Chandra Ghosh and subsequently they
Chandra Saha, Gopeswar Gope, Paresh Saha and Jaya
in favour of Satya Narayan
transferred their respective purchase property
different dates. The suit property is not the suit
on
Saha by different registered deed of sale Dag no.-1145
herein because it is the property lying in Mouza-Jyangra, under R.S.
property
under P.S.-Rajarhat.
their case in brief. The present plaintiffs
33. That the defendants have made their fact of the
which are not believable and true because
might have to file such suit stating some fact Mondal and others
Khatun, Abdul Aziz
predecessor of the plaintiffs Morjina Bibi, Johora
of Sachindra Nath Mondal, Gita Rani
have already transferred their property in favour transfer were made
those such
Mondal and Adhir Chandra Mondal in different dates and
some of the co
sometimes in the year 1980 and a partition deed was also made amongst
above obtained
sharers who have some property on the then period. The defendants herein
the certified copy of the said deed and they craves leave to submit the same at the time of
hearing the injunction petition as well as at the time of trial of the suit.
34. That from the aforesaid very documents the present plaintiffs have neither any right,
title, interest nor any shadow of possession in respect of the suit property whenever their
predecessor had extinguished their title by way of registered deed of sale. The plaintiffs
herein knowing such fact intentionally with a view to make wrongful gain have file such
suit. This is the synopsis fact of the defendant no. I to 3 and the defendant no, 1 to 3
submits that the present suit as well as injunction petition has got no merit but speculative,
harassing, motivated, malafide, fabricated, illegal, false, untrue, baseless as such the suit is
liable to be dismissed and the injunction petition of the plaintiffs are liable to be
with sufficient cost. Rest would be placed through lawyer and by rejected
trial of the suit. affidavit at the time of
 Verification hand to this
and Iset my
knowledge and belief
tomy
true Court.
Whatever stated above are
November,2024,atBarasat
of
verificationon 7thdav

AFFIDAVIT
aged about
lo 9
residing
-
years, by Faith- Hindu, by occupation
at

and declare as below:

do hereby solemnly affirm with the
suit and I am well conversant
That Iam the defendant no. in the instant
1.
facts of the case.
knowledge.
.it is true tomy
above are true to my
of the petition marked 'x'
2. That the contents in para 1to
knowledge.
above are true to
to of the petition marked 'x'
3. That the contents in para 1
my belief
above are true to
X of the petition marked 'x'
4. That the contents in para X to
my information.

5. Rests are my submission.

Signature of the deponent

Identified by me

Advocate