District : South 24 Parganas.
In the
Court of the Learned 2nd Civil Judge ( Junior Division ),
At Baruipur, South 24
Parganas.
Title
Suit no. 261 of 2011.
Smt.
Shantilata Rudra
_______Plaintiff.
-
Versus –
Shri
Dulal Chandra Naskar & Ors.
____Defendants.
Affidavit
of Written Objection of Defendant no. 1, Shri Dulal Chandra Naskar against the
Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of Civil
Procedure Code filed by the Plaintiff.
I Sri
Dulal Chandra Naskar, Son of Late Lalit Mohan Naskar, aged about _______ years,
by faith Hindu, by Occupation – Business, residing at Village – Tegharia, Post
Office – Ramkrishna Pally, Police Station – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700 150,
District – South 24 Parganas do hereby solemnly affirm and say as
follows :-
1.
That I am the defendant no.1 in the above Suit
/ case, thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present
case and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.
Before dealing with the various allegations
contained the said application Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the code of Civil
Procedure ( hereinafter called as the “SAID APPLICATION”) , I say the
following fact for proper adjudication of the case.
3.
I say that I purchased ALL THAT Land measuring about 31
Cottahas 2 Chhitaks ( more or less ) at Mouza – Tegharia, R.S. and L.R. Dag no.
24, Khatian no. 552, Police Station Sonarpur, District – South 24 Parganas, for
Valuable consideration through the Deeds (a) Deed no. 05364 for the year 2011,
registered in Book no. I, CD Volume no. 18, Pages from 1713 to 1722, registered
at District Sub Registrar – IV, South 24 Parganas, Alipore District Registry
Office,
4.
I say that the
aforesaid Land measuring about 31 Cottahas 2 Chhitaks ( more or less ) at Mouza
– Tegharia, R.S. and L.R. Dag no. 24, Khatian no. 552, Police Station Sonarpur,
District – South 24 Parganas was duly
recorded in the record of Rights and finally published in Revenue Survey Record
or PORCHA by the Office of the B.L. & L.R.O. Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas,
in the name of erstwhile owner Sri Eyar Ali Mullick, and after such purchase I applied for mutation in
the office of the B.L. & L. R. when the plaintiff did not raise
any objection because the plaintiff had no right title interest in the said property so my name had
been duly mutated and paying taxes to the B.L. & L.R.O. and my name is still in the Record and thereafter
I applied for conversion for changing the nature of the said Land from Shali to
Bastu before the Authority of the B.L. & L.R.O. and subsequently the nature
of said Land has been converted and the same has been reflected in the Parcha as
a “Bastu Land” and the name of myself recorded
in the said parcha. I say that if the plaintiff had any right, title or
interest over the said property then she could raise objection thereto but the
plaintiff did not do so. I crave leave
to produce the aforesaid relevant documents at the time of hearing.
5.
I say that the erstwhile Vendor Sri Eyar Ali Mullick, also made a Deed
of Declaration on 21st day of February’ 2012, stating interalia the
Facts of Registration and Transfer through the Deed of Conveyance in favour of myself
vide Deed no. 01365 for the year 2012, Registered and recorded in Book no. I,
CD Volume no. 5, Pages from 1755 to 1764, registered at District Sub Registrar
– IV, office of the D.S.R. – IV South 24 Parganas,
6.
I say that I am the absolute Owner of the property measuring about
31 Cottahas 2 Chhitaks ( more or less ) at Mouza – Tegharia, R.S. and L.R. Dag
no. 24, Khatian no. 552, Police Station Sonarpur, District – South 24 Parganas wherein
I have been enjoying and possessing till
date by paying all necessary Govt. Revenues and others levies from the date of purchase.
7.
Now I am dealing with various allegations contained in the
said application seriatimly :-
8.
I say that the said application is not
maintainable either in facts or in its present form and the Petitioner has no cause of action for bringing this Suit against the Respondent as the said application
is speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted and baseless as is barred by the Principles of law and hence same
is liable to be rejected.
9.
I say that the Suit as well as said application
are of a result of deep rooted conspiracy and in collusion amongst the persons
intended to grab the property by the Land
Mafia, who have wrongfully and illegally conspired and colluded
with each of them to cause undue harassment upon the Respondent on the
basis of purported forged documents and more particularly the present suit has
filed by a fictitious person who has no authority and identity at all to
present the instant suit as well as said application for injunction against the
Respondent as there exist no person in the name of Plaintiff namely Shantilata Rudra, Wife of
Netai Rudra, of Village – Barhansh Fartabad, Police Station – Sonarpur,
District – South 24 Parganas. Moreover it appears from the plaint as well as
from the said injunction application that the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Lata Rudra
purchased the alleged schedule land on 8th day of May 1953 from one
alleged Phanindra Lal Bhattacharjee wherefrom it appears that the said
Shantilata Rudra was a major lady on that date of purchase but it appears from the affidavit of the plaint as
well as said injunction application the age of the deponent is 58 years and is residing at Barhans Fartabad,
P.S.- Sonarpur, District- 24 Parganas as such from the date of alleged purchased by the
plaintiff from alleged Phanindra Lal Bhattacharjee on 08-05-1953 to till
November 2011 the age of the plaintiff is
59 years 6 months then how the plaintiff purchased the alleged
property on that alleged date when the
plaintiff/petitioner was in the womb of
her mother. As such I call upon the Plaintiff/petitioner to produce the originals documents which have
been relied upon by her before the learned Court to strict proof of the
averments made by herself and to appear personally in court with her identity proof
so that the Respondent can verify the said alleged purported documents and to
file additional written statement/ objection on the disclosed of the same by
the Plaintiff and I reserve my right to amend the additional written statement/
objection at appropriate time.
10.
Save and except the statements made in the said
application which are the matter of record, the defendants denies each and
every allegations contained in the said application and calls upon the
plaintiff to strict proof of the said allegations.
11.
I say that the said application has been filed
by a fictitious person in the name of the plaintiff in gross abuse process of law
and to mislead the Court of law which is liable to be dismissed with examplatory costs at once.
12.
With reference to paragraphs 1 to 8 of the said
application I specifically and emphatically denied and disputed the same save
and except what are the matter of record. I say that the alleged statements are
false and fabricated and on the basis of
some forged and concocted documents. I specifically dispute and deny all the
document which have been relied upon by the plaintiff. The defendant does not
admit any thing as those are not the matter of facts as well as not the matter
of true record, whatsoever, the story enumerated in such fancifully manner to
in clinch issues in favour of the fictitious plaintiff, solely based on the
forged and fabricated and/or manufactured documents and/or papers. I further
say that the plaintiff did not disclosed the particular date of registration of
the respective deed of Sale and also did not disclosed the deed Number of the
respective alleged Deed of Sale and the Registration offices whereon the said
alleged Deed of sale was executed and registered so as to mislead the learned Court by false
statement and overlapped documents. I further say that I enquired about the truthness of the statement of the plaintiff as
enumerated in paragraph no. 6 of the plaint about the Title Suit no. 211 filed
in the year 1960 before the Learned 2nd Civil Judge ( (Junior
Division) at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas
with the concerned Judicial Record Section situated at Alipore Judges’ Court,
Alipore, Kolkata, South 24 Parganas, and shocked and surprised to look after the
certified copy of the document recorded
in the index of the said concerned judicial record section of the Alipore
Judges’ Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, as such the said Title Suit being
no. 211 of 1960, was not instituted by this fictitious plaintiff. I further say
that from the certified copy of the said T.S. NO.- 211 of 1960 it shows that one Bipin Behari Halder being referred to as
Plaintiff who filed the said suit against Sri Sarat Chandra Mondal and 4 others
being referred to as Defendants and the said Suit finally decided as on
24-05-1962, as Defunct with cost. Thus the present suit is a malicious
proceeding brought by the fictitious plaintiff with false, fabricated and
forged documents and made concocted story more particularly with the forged
documents / papers. The present suit instituted by some unscrupulous person by this
fictitious plaintiff herein, to harass
the defendant in several manners. I crave leave to produce the relevant
documents at the time of hearing.
13.
With regard to paragraphs nos. 9 to 11 and the rest of the said application Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, read with
Section 151 of C.P.C. are all emphatically denied by me which are of no basis at all in view of the facts as stated
hereinabove. I specifically state and submits that the said Plaint is a fabricated
one and filed by a fictitious person as such the application under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of C.P.C. is totally baseless, frivolous,
concocted and fabricated one and the same should be rejected with examplatory
cost at once.
14.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances I
hereby submit that the instant application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be rejected with
examplatory cost at once and the interim order passed by this learned Court
should be vacated.
15.
I say that the foregoing statement made in
paragrhphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 and 13 are true to the best of my knowledge
and the rest are my humble submission before the learned Court.
Deponent
Prepared
in my office
Identified by me
Advocate Advocate
No comments:
Post a Comment