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.
Written
Statement of Defendant no. 1, Shri Dulal Chandra Naskar.
The Defendant above named
states as follows :
- The
Suit is not maintainable either in facts or in its present form.
- The
Plaintiff has no cause of action
for the Suit.
- That
the plaint is speculative, harassing, motivated and barred by the
Principles of law and hence it is
liable to be rejected.
- The
present suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver, and
acquiseence.
- The
Suit is a result of deep rooted conspiracy and collusion amongst the persons
intended to grab the property and or Land Mafia, who have wrongfully and
illegally conspired and colluded with each other to cause undue harassment
to this defendant on the basis of purported forged documents, and more
particularly the present suit has filed by a fictitious person as
plaintiff to the present suit, as such there is no existence of the
Plaintiff named as Shantilata Rudra, Wife of Netai Rudra, of Village –
Barhansh Fartabad, Police Station – Sonarpur, District – South 24
Parganas, In fact this defendant
called upon the plaintiff to produce originals of the said documents as
well as to personally appear in person with the proof of her identity, prior
to the date of hearing enabling this defendant to inspect the original of
such purported documents and also to inspect her identity, and to file
additional written statement on disclosure of further details in that
regard and in such circumstances this defendant reserve his right to amend
the written statement or to file additional written statement as the case
may be to that effect at the appropriate time and juncture.
- Save
and except the statements of the plaint specifically admitted herein, the
defendants denies each and every other statements as alleged in the plaint
and puts the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.
- That
the defendant, states that the Plaint filed by the fictitious plaintiff is
in gross abuse process of law, without merit and liable to dismiss with
costs, at once.
- At
the outset the Defendant, herein states the following facts for proper
& fair adjudication in the instant suit proceedings :
I.
That the
Defendant purchased ALL THAT THE 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,
II.
That the
defendant Purchased 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, from the Vendor Sri Eyar Ali
Mullick, whose name has been 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, and whereas after such purchase by the
Defendant, the defendant, mutated his name and paying taxes to the B.L. &
L.R.O.
III.
That the
Defendant states that Defendant applied for conversion of the said Land from
Shali to Bastu before the Authority of the B.L. & L.R.O. and whereas
subsequently the said conversion of Land of the Defendant’s has been allowed
and the Parcha published clearly shows the said Land is now by nature a “Bastu
Land” in the name of the Defendant and the detailed information on inspection
also shows that the said Land has been converted duly in accordance with the
Law as Bastu, in the name of Defendant.
IV.
That
Defendant states that the 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
your Petitioner, vide Deed no. 01365 for the year 2012, Registered 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,
V.
That the
defendant is an absolute Owner of the property described as 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, and whereas the defendant enjoying such property by paying all
necessary Govt. Revenues and others
- That
without waiving any of the aforesaid Objections and Facts and fully
relying thereupon and without prejudice to the same. The Defendant, now
deals with the specific paragraphs of the said Plaint in seriatim as
hereunder.
- That
the Plaint is not maintainable either in facts or in its present form and
the plaintiff has no cause of action for bringing this suit against the
defendant as the said plaint is speculative, harassing, motivated, concocted
and baseless as is barred by the Principles of Law and hence same is
liable to be rejected at once.
- That
the Suit is a result of deep rooted conspiracy and in collusion amongst
the person 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 Defendant 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
against the defendant 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 that the Plaintiff Smt. Shantilata
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, the age of deponent is 58
years and is residing at Barhans Fartabad, P.S. – Sonarpur, District –
South 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 was in the womb of her
mother. As such the defendant call upon the plaintiff to produce the
original documents which have been relied upon by her before the Learned
Court to strict proof of the
averment made by herself and to appear personally in Court with her
identity proof so that the defendant can verify the said alleged purported
documents and to file additional written statement on the disclosed of the
same by the plaintiff and whereas the defendant reserve his right to amend
the additional written statement at appropriate time and juncture.
- Save
and except the statements made in the said plaint which are matter of
record, the defendant denies each and every allegations contained in the
said plaint and calls upon the plaintiff to strict proof of the said
allegations.
- That
the Plaint 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.
- The
statements as alleged in paragraph nos.1 to 8, of the plaint are all
emphatically denied by the defendant as the same are not at all true or
correct and more particularly based upon forged documents and or papers.
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 manufactured
documents and or papers. The defendant states and submits that the
plaintiff did not disclose the particular date of registration of the
respective deed of sale and also did not disclose the deed number of the
respective alleged Deed of Sale and the Registration Offices wherefrom the
said alleged Deed of Sale was executed and registered, so as to mislead the
Learned Court by false statement and overlapped documents. The defendant further
states that the defendant enquire about the truth of the statement of the
plaintiff as enumerated in paragraph no. 7 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 astonished upon receipt of the
certified copy of the entry 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, and whereas the certified copy
shows that the plaintiff in the said Suit is Bipin Behari Halder and the
defendants are as Sarat Chandra Mondal and 4 others, and whereas the said
Suit finally decided as on 24-05-1962, as Defunct with cost. Thus the
present suit is a malicious proceeding having fictitious plaintiff, with
false and fabricated / concocted story and more particularly with the
forged documents / papers. The present suit instituted by some un
scripture person by the fictitious plaintiff herein, to harass the defendant
in several manners. The defendant crave leave to produce the relevant
documents at the time of hearing.
- With
regard to the paragraphs nos. 9 and 10, of the plaint are all emphatically
denied by the defendant, in view of the above stated herein.
- The Defendant states and submits that
the said Plaint filed by the Fictitious Plaintiff herein with baseless,
frivolous, concocted and untrue allegation against the Defendant, and with
dubious intention, and thus liable to be rejected with exemplary costs, at
once.
- The
Suit is barred by the Limitation and not maintainable in it’s present
form.
- The
cause of action for the suit has not arisen in the manner as alleged in
the plaint and the plaintiff can not be said to have any cause of action
for the suit. In fact, the suit is bad for multi – feriousness of cause of
action.
- The
suit is not properly valued and the court fees paid therein is
insufficient in Law. The verification in support of the plaint is
defective.
- There
is no schedule in the plaint and the plaint is defective in that regard as
well and is liable to fail. On that score. The plaintiff is not entitled
to the decree / relief as prayed for.
- The
Suit is vexatious, frivolous, harassing, and is liable to be dismissed
with cost.
- That
the Defendant crave leave to produce the relevant documents as well as the
documents relied upon by the defendant, at the time of hearing.
- The
defendant crave leave to file appropriate application for getting the
copies of the documents which the plaintiff intend to rely upon and only
after getting the copies thereof the defendant may require to file
additional written statement or he may have to amend the written statement
as well.
- That
in the above stated Facts and Circumstances, the Defendant seeks dismissal
of the Plaint with exemplary Costs and others.
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of 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.
.
I, the above deponent do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
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 : That the facts contained in
aforesaid Written Statement, the contents of which have not been repeated
herein for the sake of brevity may be read as an integral part of this
affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
Verification
I, the above named deponent do
hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my above affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge, and no part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed therein.
Verified this ………….the day of
…………….2013, at Kolkata.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated :……………2013.
Place : Kolkata.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment