IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
REPLY
ON BEHALF OF PLAINITFF TO THE DEFEDANT’S APPLICATION DATED 21.11.2013 UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 2 A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Answering plaintiff strongly opposes the
relief sought by the defendants and begs to submit his reply as under :
PRILIMINARY OBJECTION
1.
Nothing in the application
dated 21.11.2013 under order 39 rule 2A of the code of civil procedure, 1908 shall deemed to admitted unless it has been
specifically admitted in this reply. The palintiff is a law abiding national of
india and he has highest regard to the authority of Law and its enforcement
agenices. Plainitff cannot even think of disobdeince or breach of order passed
by a competant Court of Law. However. Plaintiff tenders unconditional
appoligied before the Hon’ble Court at the outset.
2. The application is false, malafide and
not sustainable in Law as (1) there is a
disputed question of fact involved where it would be necessary to give
sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and cross-examine
witnesses in order to come to a definite conclusion whether the interim order
had in fact been violated; and (2) The ad-interim injunction order was passed
at an interim stage and the rights of the parties were still to be adjudicated
finally.
3. Plaintiff had filed an application on 05.11.2012 under Order 39
rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for
grant of temporary injunction whereby and whereunder praying that : “It is, therefore most humbly and
respectfully prayed that during pendency of instant civil suit the defendant
No. 1 may kindly be restrained by an order of temporary of injunction
restraining herself, or her agents not to alienate, create third party interest
over the suit property, in the larger interest of justice”.
4. On 12.03.2013 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to kind enough in
directing the both the parties not to alienate and create third party interest
over the suit property. This ad-interim order was passed on application filed
by plaintiff pending the final decision of on an application for grant of
temporary injunction (Supra). This
ad-interim order was continued on several occasions but it was discontinued at
later stage.
5. The defendants have deliberately wrongly mentioned the name of
mother of plaintiff as “Pita Swa. Shri Kiran Shrivastava” in the cause title of
this application whereas it ought to have been mentioned “S/o Late Mrs. Kiran
Shrivastava”. The defendant may please be directed to correct the cause title
of their application as it is defamatory and highly objectionable.
PARAWISE REPLY
6. Contents and allegations of para 1 are specifically denied. Facts
are not properly pleaded in this para. It is specifically denied that reply to
application for grant of temporary injunction was given by the defendants. On
12.03.2013 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to kind enough in directing the both
the parties not to alienate and create third party interest over the suit
property. This ad-interim order was passed on application filed by plaintiff
pending the final decision of on an application for grant of temporary
injunction (Supra). This ad-interim order
was continued on several occasions but it was discontinued at later stage.
7. Contents and allegations of para 2 are specifically denied. It is
specially denied that plaintiff has caused destruction to the suit property. On
several occasions defendants had caused nuisance by demolishing the wall which
was reported by plaintiff, are already on record viz. (1) Police report on 06.12.2012
against the defendants submitted to Police station Jahagirabad, Bhopal (M. P.),
(2) Police report on 06.12.2012 against the defendants submitted to Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (M. P.), (3) Complaint on 06.12.2012 against
the defendants submitted to Chairperson, Madhya Pradesh Human Rights
Commission, Paryawas Bhawan, Section –I, Ground Floor, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.
P.), and (4) Police report on 01.03.2013 against the defendants submitted to
Police station Jahagirabad, Bhopal (M. P.). It is specifically denied a tenant was
inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff. Defendants themselves are
permitting different person for use and abuse of the suit property as evident
from the Pamphlets published and distributed by defendants of different kind of
business being carried out by them in a residential area, which are already on
record.
8. Contents and allegations of para 3 are specifically denied. It is
specifically denied that plaintiff has disobeyed or breached the Order passed
by this Hon’ble Court. Defendants have not come before this Hon’ble Court with
clean hands as no cause action accrued to the defendants for invoking the
provisions of under order 39 rule 2A of
the code of civil procedure, 1908. There was no order of maintaining the status quo with regards to nature of
suit property as there was no such prayer.
9.
Contents and
allegations of para 4 are specifically denied. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code deal with powers of the Court to grant
temporary injunction. Rule 2A has been inserted in the order as per Act
104/1976. Rule 2A reads thus:-
"Consequence of disobedience or
breach of injunction - (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction
granted or other order made Under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the
terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting
the injunction or making the order or any court to which the suit or proceeding
is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such
disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be
detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in
the meantime the Court directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule
shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the
disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of
the proceeds, the Court, may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the
injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the property entitled
thereto."
Affidavit is false and specifically
denied.
An affidavit in support of this reply is
being filed herewith.
Accordingly the application being devoid
of any merit and deserves to be rejected with costs.
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
& Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava, R/o House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar,
Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh), the above named deponent,
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1.
That I am the plaintiff in the
above mentioned civil suit and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in
the civil suit.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs
1 to 4 of the accompanying reply are true to my personal knowledge and the
contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be true.
No material has been concealed and no part is false.
BHOPAL
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath
that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at
______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 [NO. 5 OF 1908] FOR GRANT OF TEMPROARAY
INJUNCTION
Plaintiff named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit
as under :
1. Plaintiff has filed the instant regular civil suit for a Decree of
Declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
2. On 08.02.2014, defendants are trying to change the nature of suit
property by opening a shop of canteen / restaurant in the suit property. If
defendants are allowed to open the canteen / restaurant, it would occasion a
failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff against whom
it is proposed to be made.
3. As per the averments made in the memo of plaint, plaintiff has a
good prima facie case in his favour and hopes to succeed in it. If during
pendency of instant civil suit the defendants and their agents are not
restrained to the suit property danger of
being wasted, damaged or alienated, the plaintiff would suffer
irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience too lies in his favour.
4. From the facts and circumstances, narrated here in above in the
preceding paras it is expedient in the interest of justice that pending final
disposal of instant suit, defendants and their agents may kindly be restrained not
to danger of being wasted, damaged or
alienated the suit property.
An affidavit in support of this application is being filed
herewith.
PRAYER
It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that during
pendency of instant civil suit defendants and their agents may kindly be
restrained not to danger of being wasted,
damaged or alienated the suit property, in the larger interest of
justice.
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
& Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava, R/o House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar,
Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh), the above named deponent,
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
3.
That I am the plaintiff in the
above mentioned civil suit and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in
the civil suit.
4.
That the contents of paragraphs
1 to 4 of the accompanying application are true to my personal knowledge and
the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be
true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.
5.
That the Annexure No(s). to the
accompanying civil suit are true copies of the originals and I have compared
the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to be true
copies thereof.
BHOPAL
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath
that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at
______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162 -A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING
Plaintiff named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit
as under :
1. Plaintiff has filed the instant regular civil suit for a Decree of
Declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
2. On 08.02.2014, defendants are trying to change the nature of suit
property by opening a shop of canteen / restaurant in the suit property. If
defendants are allowed to open the canteen / restaurant, it would occasion a
failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff against whom
it is proposed to be made.
Prayer
It
is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that looking to facts and
circumstances, the case be heard today only in the larger interest of Justice
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162 -A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Police report against
the defendants submitted to Police station Jahagirabad, Bhopal (M. P.)
|
06.12.2012
|
Xerox Copy
|
03
|
|
2.
|
Police report against
the defendants submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (M. P.)
|
06.12.2012
|
.…do….
|
03
|
|
3.
|
Complaint against the
defendants submitted to Chairperson, Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission,
Paryawas Bhawan, Section –I, Ground Floor, Arera Hills, Bhopal (M. P.)
|
06.12.2012
|
.…do….
|
03
|
|
4.
|
Police report against
the defendants submitted to Police station Jahagirabad, Bhopal (M. P.)
|
01.03.2013
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
5.
|
Death Certificate
issued by Indore Municipal Coprtation, Indore in respect of death of Mrs.
Shakuntala @ Renu Shrivastava W/o Late Mr. Chandra Kant Shrivastava on
24.11.2013 at Vishesh Hospital, Indore under the provisions of Section 12/17
of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969
|
26.11.2003
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
6.
|
Uthawana ceremony of
Mrs. Shakuntala Shrivastava @ Renu @ Ranoo W/o Late Mr. Chandra Kant
Shrivastava published in a daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” Indore
|
27.11.2013
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
7.
|
Photographs of suit of
house
|
original
|
||
|
8.
|
pamphlets published and distributed by
defendants of different kind of business being carried out by them in a
residential area
|
original
|
06
|
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
REPLY
ON BEHALF OF PLAINITFF TO THE DEFEDANT’S APPLCIATION DATED 08.01.2013 UNDER
ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH SECTION 9 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AND SECTION 213 OF THE INDIAN SUCESSION ACT, 1925
Answering plaintiff strongly opposes the
relief sought by the defendants and begs to submit his reply as under :
1.
The application is false, malafide and not sustainable in Law as To decide whether Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act bars
claim based on a Will in the absence of a probate would require examination of
the relevant provisions of Section 213 and Section 57, Clauses (a), (b) mentioned
in the former section which is as under :
"Section 213. Right as executor or legatee when established-
(1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any
Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted
letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy
of the Will annexed.
(2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by
Muhamedans, and shall only apply,-
(i) in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina
where such Wills are to the clauses specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section
57."
"Section 57. Application of certain provisions of part to a
class of Wills made by Hindus, etc.-
The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III
shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply,-
(a) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or
Jaina, on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories
which at the said date were subject to the Lieu tenant-Governor of Bengal or
within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High
Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and
(b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories
and limits so far as relates to immovable property situates within those
territories or limits; and
(c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or
Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to .which those provisions
are not applied by Clauses (a) and (b):
Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such Will or
codicil."
2. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that Sub-section
(1) of Section 213 placing a prohibition on claiming right based on a Will
without probate, are applicable only to Will of the class specified in Clauses
(a) and (b) of Section 57 in accordance with Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 213.
The present Will executed in Madhya Pradesh is not one of the classes of Wills
specified in Sub-clause (a) and Sub-clause (b). The restriction is to the Will
executed within jurisdiction of High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bombay and
Bengal and to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and
limits but only insofar as they relate to movable properties situated in those
territories and limits.
3. Even if Will is not probated that does not prevent the vesting of
the property of the deceased on the executor/administrator and consequently any
right of action to represent the estate of the executor can be initiated even
before the grant of the probate. Parties to the suit are governed by the Hindu
Law.
Accordingly the application being devoid
of any merit and deserves to be rejected with costs.
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
Phool Singh and two Ors. v. Smt. Kosa Bai and two Ors., [1999(1) MPJR
352).
2005 (3) MPHT 486
Vijendra (Brijendra) Singh Yadav vs Smt. Rajkumari Yadav And Ors. On 8
July, 2005
Beni Prasad vs Meera Bai And Anr. on 2 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: I (2001)
DMC 137
AIR 2004 SC 2060 : 2004 (3) SCR 722 : (2004) 7
SCC 505 : JT 2004 (4) SC 139 : 2004 (4) SCALE 163 Commissioner, Jalandhar
... vs Mohan Krishan Abrol & Another on 2 April, 2004
2009) 10
SCC 223
Fgp Ltd.
vs Saleh Hooseini Doctor & Anr. on 15 September, 2009
Binapani Kar
Chowdhury vs Sri Satyabrata Basu And Anr on 16 May, 2006
(2006) 10 SCC 442 = (2006) 4 MLJ 162 = MANU/SC/2832/2006
2008 (2) MPHT 155 =
Manak Chand Jain vs
Smt. Pukhraj Bai And Anr. on 16 January, 2008
2007 (1) MPHT 189
Mayank @ Vaibhava vs Public In General And Ors.
on 4 August, 2006
2005 (3) MPHT 486
Vijendra
(Brijendra) Singh Yadav vs Smt. Rajkumari Yadav And Ors. on 8 July, 2005
1997 (1) MPLJ 220
Surabji Nasarwanji
vs J.N. Dubas And Ors. on 5 April, 1995
BHOPAL,
DATED : 12.11.2012
To,
The
Sub-Registrar
Office
of Sub-Registrar,
Jawahar
Chowk,
Bhopal – 462003,
District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
Sub-Request for not register sale deed in respect of House No. 2
(Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya
Pradesh) admeasuring area 60 x 90 feet = 5400 sq ft.
Dear Sir,
1. I am the owner-in possession of House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya
Nagar, Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh). My Late father Mr.
Prem Shrivastava, was recorded as a owner of House No.2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya
Nagar, Bhopal admeasuring area 60 x 90 feet = 5400 sq ft. having received the
same through a registered deed of conveyance dated 15.07.1986 from Friends
Housing co-operative Society Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. After the death of
Late Shri Prem Shrivastava on 27.12.1996 as per his Will dated 19.10.1993, his
widow Smt. Kiran Shrivastava came to be recorded as owner of the suit property.
I am the absolute owner of the suit property and entitled for a declaration on
the strength of Will dated 01-10-2000 executed by his mother Late Smt. Kiran
Shrivastava.
2. My elder sister (1) MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN, Aged about 51 years, W/o
Mr. Pramod Pradhan, and brother in law (2) MR. PRAMOD PRADHAN, Aged about 56
years, S/o Late Shri K. N. Pradhan, Both R/o F-83/5 Tulsi Nagar, Opposite
Maharashtra Bhawan, Near Chakki Chouraha, Bhopal – 462003, District – BHOPAL
(Madhya Pradesh) are trying to create third party interest by alienating it to
some other person without any authority under the Law.
3. To desist themselves from such illegal and unauthorized act, I
have filed a Regular Civil Suit No.
1162-A of 2012, on 05.11.2012 before the Hon’ble Court of District
Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) seeking a temporary injunction restraining themselves or
her agents not to alienate, create third party interest over the house in
question, which is pending for consideration.
4. Therefore it is most humbly and respectfully requested that since
the matter is sub-judice before the Competent Court of Law, kindly not to
register sale deed in respect of House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar,
Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh) admeasuring area 60 x 90
feet = 5400 sq ft., for which I shall remain obliged.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
AMIT ABHISHEK
SHRIVASTAVA,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late Mrs. Kiran
Shrivastava &
Late Mr. Prem
Shrivastava,
R/o House No. 2 (Plot No
3),
Malviya Nagar, Bhopal –
462003,
District – BHOPAL
(Madhya Pradesh)
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late Mrs. Kiran
Shrivastava &
Late Mr. Prem
Shrivastava,
R/o House No. 2 (Plot No
3),
Malviya Nagar, Bhopal –
462003,
District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
…… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN,
Aged
about 51 years,
W/o
Mr. Pramod Pradhan,
R/o
F-83/5 Tulsi Nagar,
Opposite
Maharashtra Bhawan,
Near
Chakki Chouraha,
Bhopal
– 462003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
2. MR. PRAMOD PRADHAN,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o Late Shri K. N.
Pradhan,
R/o F-83/5 Tulsi
Nagar,
Opposite Maharashtra
Bhawan,
Near Chakki Chouraha,
Bhopal – 462003,
District – BHOPAL
(Madhya Pradesh) …… DEFENDANTS
CLAIM IN SUIT FOR DECLARATION VALUED AT RS. 2,50,00,000/- FOR
POSSESSION VALUED AT RS. 1,00,00,000/- AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION VALUED AT
RS. 5000/- TOTAL RS. 3,50,05,000/-
Plaintiff named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit
as under:
1. Late Shri Prem Shrivastava, father of plaintiff and defendant No.1
was recorded owner of House No.2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal admeasuring
area 60 x 90 feet = 5400 sq ft. having received the same through a registered
deed of conveyance dated 15.07.1986 from Friends Housing co-operative Society
Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. After purchasing this plot, Late Shri Prem
Shrivastava constructed a two storeyed residential house over it. This property
would hereinafter called the suit property more specifically shown with red
colour and marked with letter A, B, C, D, in the map attached with this plaint
hereinafter called the plaint map. The suit property is bounded by following
details :
Towards North :
Office of Airtel
Towards South : House
of Telang’s
Towards East : Hosue
of Mr. Gadre
Towards West : Old
Vidhan Sabha – Roshanpura Road.
2. After the death of Late Shri Prem Shrivastava on 27.12.1996 as per
his Will dated 19.10.1993, his widow Smt. Kiran Shrivastava came to be recorded
as owner of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 & 2 are the elder sister and
brother in law of plaintiff.
3. After about a month of the death of mother Late Smt. Kiran
Shrivastava on 21-05-2004, defendant No.2 obtained the signatures of plaintiff
in some blank papers and plaintiff never minded and never enquired from
defendant No.2 as he had full faith on him being the only brother-in-law and
since the Will of the mother of the plaintiff was not known, plaintiff have no
apprehension of any malice on the part of defendants though they had the
knowledge of the Will of the mother. However, plaintiff continued receiving the
rent from the tenants in the suit property till year 2008 and when a portion
was vacated by tenant, defendants put some College going students as Tenants
till year 2011, and later their Daughter’s to run their Clinic, plaintiff
started apprehending & quite sure that defendants are trying to grab his
property.
4. In October, 2012, defendants started pressurising the plaintiff to
sell the suit property under Builders agreement as it has became commercially
valuable property to which plaintiff did not agree as it is his Father and
Mother hard earned property and he has strong emotional attached to it, and
this lead to a dispute and since the aunt of plaintiff is the one of only
nearest and most respected relative left
after the death of his parents and therefore he consulted in this matter with
her and she for the first time disclosed to plaintiff about the Will dated
01-10-2000 of the suit property executed by Late Smt. Kiran Shrivastava in
favour of plaintiff. The aunt Smt. Shakuntala Shrivastava informed that she had
disclosed the Will just after the death of Smt. Kiran Shrivastava to which
defendants got offended and expressed their feelings in such a manner that if
Smt. Shakuntala Shrivastava will disclose this Will to plaintiff then plaintiff
would be in Trouble. Smt. Shakuntala Shrivastava knew well that defendant No.2
is an influential person at Bhopal and have good connection with Political
Leaders and in Administration and was Ex-Corporator (Nagar Nigam, Bhopal) and his father was Ex-Member of Parliament (Ex-MP
“Lok-Sabha”, Bhopal) & Ex-Minister of the State and all renowned anti
social elements are obliged from defendant No.2 and plaintiff was having a delicate family life having no job and
small baby at that time. Therefore looking to the circumstances then Smt.
Shakuntala Shrivastava thought it fit to keep silence in the interest of
plaintiff but had in her mind that in the suitable occasion and time she will
disclose this fact to plaintiff and when this matter came before her that
defendants are trying to sell the suit property she thought it fit and
disclosed the Will of Late Smt. Kiran Shrivastava and got plaintiff aware about
his right over the suit property. Plaintiff informed defendant No.1 that since
he has come to know about the Will of mother from Smt. Shakuntala Shrivastava,
their Mausi (younger sister of Late Smt. Kiran Shrivastava) in October, 2012,
he is now not interested to sell the suit property and he has asked her to
vacate the portion shown in green colour in the map which is in her possession.
5. Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and entitled
for a declaration on the strength of Will dated 01-10-2000 executed by his
mother Late Smt. Kiran Shrivastava and therefore the mutation Order dated
14-12-2010 made jointly in the name of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is illegal
and not binding on plaintiff as he is the absolute owner of the suit property.
Plaintiff is also entitled for possession of the portion shown with green
colour in the plaint map from defendants as they are in possession by playing
fraud with plaintiff by suppressing the Will dated 01-10-2000 of Late Smt.
Kiran Shrivastava by obtaining the Mutation Order dated 14-12-2010 and for
permanent injunction as defendants are trying to sell out the portion of suit
property.
6. The cause of action accrued at Bhopal on 14-12-2010 when the
mutation order was passed jointly in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and
on October 2012 when it came to the knowledge of plaintiff for the first time
about the Will dated 1-10-2000 and for possession of the portion marked with A,
B, C & D in the plaint map from defendants and for permanent injunction
against defendants when they tried to create third party interest in the suit
property.
7. For the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction the suit is valued
at Rs. 2.5 Crores for declaration and Rs. 1 Crore for possession and Rs. 5000/-
for permanent injunction and Court fees for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is being
paid herewith accordingly.
8. Plaintiff relies on and files documents as per list.
9. Plaintiff will rely on and file more documents as and when
necessary.
An affidavit in support of
this plaint is being filed herewith.
P R A Y E R
(a)
For a Decree of
declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit property at House
No.2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal shown with red colour in the plaint
map measuring 60’x90’ (excluding the front area of 60’x15’ for Kitchen
Garden/Parking area) on the strength of Will dated 01-10-2000 executed by Late
Smt. Kiran Shrivastava in favour of plaintiff and that the defendants have no
right to create third party interest in the same.
(b)
For a Decree of
Possession of the green portion of the suit property situated at House No.2
(Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal.
(c)
For a Decree of
permanent injunction restraining defendants and their agent and servant from
creating third party interest in the suit property.
(d)
Cost of the
suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Any other relief deemed fit and proper may
also be granted.
BHOPAL : PLAINTIFF
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Mrs.
Kiran Shrivastava & Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava, R/o House No. 2 (Plot No.
3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh), do
hereby verify and sign on this day-------- of October 2012 and states that the
contents of para 1 to end of the Civil Suit are true to my personal knowledge
and belief.
PLAINTIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
& Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava, R/o House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar,
Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh), the above named deponent,
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
6.
That I am the plaintiff in the
above mentioned civil suit and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in
the civil suit.
7.
That the contents of paragraphs
1 to end of the accompanying civil suit are true to my personal knowledge and
the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be
true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.
8.
That the Annexure No(s). to the
accompanying civil suit are true copies of the originals and I have compared
the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to be true
copies thereof.
BHOPAL
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath
that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at
______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
PLAINT
MAP
 |
 |
||||
|
|||||
 |
       |
||||||||||||||||||
|
House No. 2 (Plot No. 3),
Malviya Nagar, Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
BHOPAL : PLAINTIFF
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Registered deed of
conveyance executed by Friends Housing co-operative Society Ltd., Malviya
Nagar, Bhopal
|
15.07.1986
|
Xerox Copy
|
03
|
|
2.
|
Death certificate of
Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava
|
20.01.1997
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
3.
|
Will executed by Late
Mr. Prem Shrivastava in favour of Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
|
19.10.1993
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
4.
|
Will executed by Late
Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
|
01-10-2000
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
5.
|
Mutation Order issued
by Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in favor of Mrs. Krian Shrivastava
|
24.06.2003
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
6.
|
Death Certificate of
Late Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
|
31.05.2004
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
7.
|
Affidavit sworn-in by
plaintiff & defendant No. 1 before the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal
|
08.07.2004
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
8.
|
Mutation Order issued
by Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in favor of Plaintiff
|
29.07.2004
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
9.
|
No demand certificate
issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in favour of defendant No. 1
|
29.11.2010
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
10.
|
No demand certificate
issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in favour of plaintiff
|
29.11.2010
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
11.
|
Intimation of Mutation
order issued by the Tahsildar, Rajdhani Pariyojana, T. T. Nagar Circle,
Bhopal in favour of plaintiff & defendant No. 1
|
15.12.2010
|
.…do….
|
01
|
|
12.
|
Property Tax Receipts
issued by Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhopal in favour of plaintiff
|
1996 to 2012
|
.…do….
|
15
|
|
13.
|
Electricity Bills
issued by MPSEB, Bhopal in favour of plaintiff
|
1994 to 2012
|
.…do….
|
19
|
|
14.
|
Police report against
the defendants submitted to Police station Jahagirabad, Bhopal (M. P.)
|
02.11.2012
|
.…do….
|
02
|
|
15.
|
Police report against
the defendants submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (M. P.)
|
02.11.2012
|
.…do….
|
02
|
|
16.
|
Public Notice published
in the local daily news paper “Dainik Bhaskar” Bhopal
|
03.11.2012
|
.…do….
|
01
|
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 [NO. 5 OF 1908] FOR GRANT OF TEMPROARAY
INJUNCTION
Plaintiff named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit
as under :
3. Plaintiff has filed the instant regular civil suit for a Decree of
Declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
4. As per the averments made in the memo of plaint, plaintiff has a
good prima facie case in his favour and hopes to succeed in it. If during
pendency of instant civil suit the defendant No. 1 or her agents is not
restrained to alienate, create third party interest over the suit property, the
plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience
too lies in his favour.
5. From the facts and circumstances, narrated here inabove in the
preceding paras it is expedient in the interest of justice that pending final
disposal of instant suit, the defendant No. 1 or her agents be pleased to
restrain alienate, create third party interest over the suit property.
An affidavit in support of this application is being filed
herewith.
PRAYER
It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that during
pendency of instant civil suit the defendant No. 1 may kindly be restrained by
an order of temporary of injunction restraining herself, or her agents not to
alienate, create third party interest over the suit property, in the larger
interest of justice.
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava
& Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava, R/o House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar,
Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh), the above named deponent,
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
9.
That I am the plaintiff in the
above mentioned civil suit and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in
the civil suit.
10.That the contents of
paragraphs 1 to 3 of the accompanying application are true to my personal
knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I
believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.
11.That the Annexure No(s).
to the accompanying civil suit are true copies of the originals and I have
compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to
be true copies thereof.
BHOPAL
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I,
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath
that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at
______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I,
MRS. SHAKUNTALA SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 73 years, W/o Late Shri Chandrakant Shrivastava,
R/o P-9, Aakriti Eco-City, E-8 Extension, Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal - 462 042 , District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh), the
above named deponent, solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1.
THAT, I am the Mausi (younger
sister of Late Smt. Kiran Shrivastava) of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and
plaintiff came to know about the Will dated 01-10-2000 of his mother through me
in the month of October, 2012.
2.
Will dated 01-10-2000 of Mrs.
Kiran Shrivastava was in my possession and looking to the safety of plaintiff I
did not disclosed and now I am not well and plaintiff has become able to handle
the suit property and the same is being sold by defendants therefore the I
disclosed the Will dated 01-10-2000.
BHOPAL
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, MRS.
SHAKUNTALA SHRIVASTAVA, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that
the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at
______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 [NO. 5 OF 1908]
Plaintiff named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit
as under :
1. Plaintiff has filed the instant regular civil suit for a Decree of
Declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
2. For the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction the suit is valued
at Rs. 2.5 Crores for declaration and Rs. 1 Crore for possession and Rs. 5000/-
for permanent injunction and Court fees for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be
paid herewith accordingly. Since the same is not available with the vendors at
the premises of District Court at Bhopal. The plaintiff may please be permitted
to make deficiency good within a few days in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that
plaintiff may please be permitted to make deficiency of court fees good within
a few days, in the larger interest of justice.
BHOPAL
DATED : ADVOCATE
FOR PLAINITIFF
Registered
Address
(Order 8 Rule 11/12 of CPC)
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
|
Name of plaintiff , father’s name, aged, caste and occupation
|
Complete address of residence
|
Post office (District)
|
|
AMIT ABHISHEK
SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Mrs. Kiran Shrivastava & Late
Mr. Prem Shrivastava, CASTE – HINDU, KAYASTHA
|
R/o House No. 2 (Plot
No. 3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal -462 003, District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh).
|
Post Office – G. P. O.
Bhopal -462 003,
District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh).
|
My aforesaid address is correct and in case of any change I will
inform the court accordingly.
PLAINITIFF
I write the address as per
instruction of plaintiff
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINITIFF
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules
4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961]
IN
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL (M.P.).
REGULAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1162-A OF 2012
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA …… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRS. RUPALI PRADHAN …… DEFENDANTS
I
the PLAINTIFF named below do hereby appoint, engage and authorize advocate (s)
named below to appear, act and plead in
aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include applications for restoration,
setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections, modifications, review and
recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this Court or in any other
Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded with and also in the
appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the proceedings arising
from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and conditions and authorize
them to sign and file pleadings ,
appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications, affidavits, or the other
documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for the prosecution / defence of the said case in all its stages
and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them as if done by us.
In witness whereof we do
hereby set our hands to these presents, the contents of which have been duly
understood by us, this – day of October, 2012 at Bhopal.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/ **Thumb
Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
|
AMIT ABHISHEK SHRIVASTAVA, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Mrs.
Kiran Shrivastava & Late Mr. Prem Shrivastava,
|
R/o House No. 2 (Plot No. 3), Malviya Nagar, Bhopal -462 003,
District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
|
|
|
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting
Vakalatnama
|
|
Full Name &
Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address for Service
|
E-mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if
any)
|
Full Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
GIRISH SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV / 724 / 1984
|
9/27, South Civil Lines, Denning Road, JABALPUR 482 001
(Madhya Pradesh)
|
girish_jbp2004@rediffmail.com
|
BSNL : 94254-11070
|
|
|
2.
|
VIJAY RAGHAV SINGH
EN. No. M. P. /
ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT NO. 93, GOLDEN
JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES,
JABALPUR 482 001
|
vijayraghav_singh@rediffmail.com
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
3.
|
P. N. SINGH RAJPUT, EN.
No. M. P. / ADV / 1929/ 1993
|
F-13, Raja Bhoj Arcade, Main Road, Bag Sewania, Bhopal -462 003,
District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
|
NIL
|
IDEA 98261-30076
|
|
|
4.
|
NARENDRA SINGH
BHADOURIA EN. No. M. P. / ADV / 1158 / 2005
|
F-13, Raja Bhoj Arcade, Main Road, Bag Sewania, Bhopal -462 003,
District – BHOPAL (Madhya Pradesh)
|
|
AIRTEL : 98936- 86181
|
|
*Score out which is not applicable
** The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate person
giving above particulars.
No comments:
Post a Comment