IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE (Senior Division),
FIROZABAD
O. S. No. Of 2014
Sartaj Ahmed
Khan aged about 46 year s/o Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan r/o 80, Barhi Chhapeti,
Firozabad.
……………………………………..………Plaintiff
V/S
1. Sri Kallu
Khan s/o Sri Majeed Khan r/o Mohalla Kashmiri Gate, Kohinoor Road, Near Dinesh
Glass, City and District Firozabad;
2. Sri Mujib
s/o Sri Jamal Uddin r/o Mohalla Shishgran, Karhal District Mainpuri;
3. Sri Nizam
s/o Sri Nasir Uddin r/o Labour Colony, City and District Firozabad;
4. Sri Mukim
s/o Sri Habib Khan r/o Taj Ganj Garhaiyya, City and District Agra;
……………………………………….Defendants
PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 READWITH SECTION 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908.
Sir,
The Plaintiff named above most
respectfully submits, as under:-
1. That Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, the father of the Plaintiff was the
co-owner of 2/3rd share of the house bearing Municipal No. 81,
situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District Firozabad and he was into
the full and exclusive possession of his share. Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan has
got this house from his ancestors.
2.
That on 04-09-2000, during his
life time Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan has bequeathed his total share of above
mentioned house no. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District
Firozabad to the plaintiff by executing a will duly registered in the office of
Sub-Registrar, Firozabad in Book No. III, File No. 53, Pages Nos. 149 to 154 at
Serial No. 243 on 04-09-2000. A Photostat copy of this will is annexed with
this plaint as Annexure – 1.
3.
That unfortunately Late Sri
Ashfaq Ahmed Khan has been died on 28-12-2006 and after his demise the
plaintiff has got the portion of the above mentioned house of Late Sri Ashfaq
Ahmed Khan and came into the possession. The name of the plaintiff has been
recorded in the records of Municipality and certified extract of record is
enclose with this plaint as Annexure – 2.
4.
That the defendant no. 1 Sri
Kallu Khan neither had nor has any right, title and interest in the house
bearing Municipal No. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District
Firozabad but even after this he has
executed a sale deed of 3200 square feet (297.28 square meters) land of this house
on 07.01.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs. Six Lakh in the favour of
defendant nos. 2 to 4 respectively Sri Mujib, Sri Nizam and Sri Mukim on the
pretext of ownership received from Sri Alaf Khan s/o Sri Sipahdar Khan r/o
Mohalla Chhapeti Kalan, City and District Firozabad through a gift deed (HIBAINAMA) dated
04.02.1946. This sale deed is registered in the office of sub-Registrar,
Firozabad in Book No. I, File No. 586, Pages Nos. 167 to 212 at Serial No. 193
on 11-01-2011.
5.
That there was no one known as Sri
Alaf Khan s/o Sri Sipahdar Khan r/o Mohalla Chhapeti Kalan, City and District
Firozabad in the predecessors of Late Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan who could be
authorized to execute a gift deed. The pretext of gift deed took by is false
and wrong.
6.
That the alleged aforesaid sale
deed dated 07.01.2011 executed by the defendant no. 1 Sri Kallu Khan in the
favour of defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Sri Mujib, Sri Nizam and Sri Mukim
is ab initio void, illegal, invalid,
inoperative because Sri Kallu Khan had no right and power to execute the
alleged sale deed of the property of the plaintiff. The alleged aforesaid sale
deed dated 07.01.2011 and registered in the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad
in Book No. I, File No. 586, Pages Nos. 167 to 212 at Serial No. 193 on
11-01-2011 is liable to be cancelled on the following grounds amongst the
various other grounds: -
(A) Because the
defendant no. 1, Sri Kallu Khan was not the owner of the house bearing
Municipal No. 81, situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti, City and District
Firozabad and his name was not recorded in the municipal records as the owner,
hence he had no right to execute the alleged sale deed.
(B) Because the
defendant no. 1, Sri Kallu Khan did not obtain the ownership and possession of the
property in suit before executing the aforesaid sale deed.
(C) Because the
plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit having 2/3rd share
and he is into the possession of property in suit since the date of his father Late
Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, without any interference from any one.
(D)Because the
alleged aforesaid sale deed is ab initio
void, illegal, invalid, and confers no right, title, or interest upon the
defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4.
(E) Because the
alleged aforesaid sale deed is not binding upon the plaintiff.
(F) Because the
plaintiff requested to Sri Kallu Khan and the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 to
cancel the aforesaid sale deed themselves because they have got registered the
sale deed in their name without properly perusing the title papers of Sri Kallu
Khan and by misrepresentation, deceit, and coercion but the defendants did not
give any heed to the humble request of plaintiff.
7. That the
alleged aforesaid sale deed dated 07.01.2011 executed by the defendant no. 1, Sri
Kallu Khan in the favour of defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 is illegal, invalid and
inoperative and Sri Kallu Khan had no right and power to execute the alleged
sale deed of the property of the plaintiff without having title. The alleged
aforesaid sale deed dated 07.01.2011 is liable to cancel.
8. That the
plaintiff first time came to know about this alleged sale deed on .05.2014 when all the defendants reached at
the property in suit to take the possession of property after disclosing the
execution of above said sale deed. The plaintiff immediately came to the office
of Sub-Registrar, Firozabad and applied for the certified copy of sale deed.
The plaintiff got the certified copy of sale deeds in question from the office
of sub-Registrar, Firozabad on
.05.2014.
9. That after
getting the certified copy of sale deed dated 07.01.2011, the plaintiff reached
to the defendants and requested them to get the sale deed cancelled themselves
but the defendants did not pay any heed to the humble request of plaintiff.
10.
That the cause of action for this suit arose on .05.2014 when the plaintiff first time
came to know about the sale deed in question and further on .05.2014 after the clear refusal of the
defendants to get cancelled the sale deeds in question themselves, at Firozabad
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has full and
exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit.
11.
That the value of this suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction and court fee is Rs. 6,00,000.00 the sale consideration and market
value of the property in suit and ad-valorem court fee of Rs. on its 1/5th for purpose of
cancellation of sale deed is being paid according to law.
PRAYER
The
plaintiff therefore, prays for the judgment and decree as under: -
A. That the
Hon’ble Court will be pleased to declare the sale deed dated 07.01.2011 duly registered
in the office of sub-Registrar, Firozabad in Book No. I, File No. 586, Pages
Nos. 167 to 212 at Serial No. 193 on 11-01-2011 for a sale consideration of Rs.
6,00,000.00 only, executed by Sri Kallu Khan, the Defendant No. 1 in the favour
of defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 as void, inoperative, cancelled and further be
pleased to send the copy of the decree to the office of sub-Registrar,
Firozabad for recording the cancellation.
B. The cost of
this suit will also be award in the favour of the plaintiffs and against all the
defendant.
C. Any other
relief to whom this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper will also be grant to
the plaintiff and against the defendants.
DETAILS
OF THE PROPERTY: -
House bearing municipal number 81 and situated at Mohalla Barhi Chhapeti City and District Firozabad as shown in
the site map attached with this plaint and measured and bounded on:
EAST BY: House of Sri Irfan Ahamed Khan; (Length 80 feet)
WEST BY: House Of Ashfaq Ahamed Khan; (Length 80 feet)
NORTH BY: Road;
and (Length 40 feet)
SOUTH BY: House of Sri Babu Ram. (Length 40 feet)
Total
area 3200 square feet.
PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION: - Verified
that the content of paragraph No. 01 to 09 of this plaint is base on the
personal knowledge and belief of the plaintiff while the content of paragraph
No. 10 and 11 of this plaint is base on the legal advice given to me and I
believe to this advice to be true and correct.
Verified on this day of 2014 at District & Sessions Court
Compound, Firozabad.
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
(PRAVEEN KUMAR BHATNAGER)
LL.
M., ADVOCATE
No comments:
Post a Comment