IN THE COURT
OF THE LEARNED 2nd CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT BARUIPUR
SOUTH 24
PARGANAS
TITLE SUIT NO. 348 OF 2025
In the matter of;
GITA SARKAR & ORS.
… Plaintiffs
- VERSUS -
CHANDAN KANTI PODDAR & ANR.
… Defendants
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1, CHANDAN KANTI PODDAR
The Defendant No. 1,
above named most respectfully submits this Written Statement;
Showeth
as under;
1.
That save and except what are specifically admitted
hereunder, the Defendant denies each and every allegation, statement,
contention and averment made in the Plaint as false, frivolous, concocted,
vexatious and filed with an ulterior motive only to harass this Defendant and
to create a pressure for illegal monetary gain.
2.
That
the Plaint is grossly undervalued, the valuation of Rs. 50,00,600/- is
arbitrary and not in accordance with the present market valuation of the suit
property. Hence, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC for improper valuation and insufficient court fees.
3.
That
the Plaintiffs have not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands. They
have deliberately suppressed material facts regarding the contribution of this
Defendant in constructing and maintaining the suit property, and the fact that
the Plaintiffs never possessed, resided, or contributed a single farthing
towards the maintenance, taxes or development of the property.
4.
That
the Plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit. The alleged dates
mentioned in Para 18 of the Plaint are fictitious, fabricated, and created only
to frame a false cause of action.
5.
That
the relief of Permanent Injunction cannot lie against a co-sharer when the
Plaintiffs themselves admit that the Defendant is in exclusive physical
possession. The prayer is legally misconceived.
6.
The
Defendant admits the description of the suit property but denies that the
Plaintiffs have any manner of right to interfere with the peaceful possession
of this Defendant. The Plaintiffs have never resided in the suit premises, nor
contributed to maintenance, tax payments or development of the property.
7.
That the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 2 are
the sisters of the defendant no. 1. All the three plaintiffs and the defendant
no. 2 have been residing permanently at their respective matrimonial homes
since after their marriages and, therefore, they had no scope to supervise or
participate in the day-to-day affairs relating to the suit property, which was,
at all material times, under the care and custody of their parents and
thereafter under the exclusive control of the defendant no. 1.
8.
That it is an undisputed matter of record that
the mother of all the parties, namely Late Smt. Jamuna Bala Poddar, was the
exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered
deed of conveyance described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. Said Jamuna Bala
Poddar died intestate on 18.08.2020.
9.
That upon the death of Late Jamuna Bala Poddar
on 18.08.2020, she left behind six legal heirs, namely—(i) her husband Late
Loknath Poddar, and (ii) her five children, being the three plaintiffs and the
two defendants herein. Consequently, the suit property devolved in
equal 1/6th undivided shares upon each of the said six legal heirs under
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
10.
That thereafter the father of the plaintiffs and
the defendants, namely Late Loknath Poddar, also died intestate on 06.02.2025,
leaving behind the same five children—the plaintiffs and defendants herein—as
his legal heirs.
11.
That it is pertinent to state that after the
death of the mother, two of the heirs, namely Late Loknath Poddar (father of
the parties) and the defendant no. 2, Sandha Roy, voluntarily transferred and
gifted their respective 1/6th undivided
shares each in the
suit property, along with specified portions, to the defendant no. 1, Chandan
Kanti Poddar, by executing a registered Deed of Gift recorded in Book No. 1,
Volume No. 1629-2021, Pages 50702 to 50726, being Deed No. 16290096 of 2021,
registered at the Office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Garia, West
Bengal, on 01.03.2021.
12.
That the said Gift Deed contained a sketch map
and gave possession of the gifted portions, being land measuring about 10
Chhitacks and 30 square feet along with 300 sq. ft. on the ground floor and 300
sq. ft. on the first floor of the structure standing on R.S. Dag No. 344 (L.R.
Dag No. 216), R.S. Khatian No. 250, J.L. No. 57, Mouza Laskarpur, P.S.
Narendrapur (formerly Sonarpur), Ward No. 30, Holding No. 5, within Rajpur Sonarpur
Municipality.
13.
That by virtue of the aforesaid registered Gift
Deed, the defendant no. 1 lawfully became owner of 3/6th
share, i.e., 50%
share of the
suit property (1/6th being his inherited share + 2/6th gifted shares), and the
remaining 3/6th share (50%) continues to belong jointly
to the three plaintiffs herein in equal proportion. The defendant no. 2, having
gifted her entire 1/6th share, ceases to have any subsisting right, title or
interest in the suit property.
14.
That after the demise of the father of the
plaintiffs and the defendants on 06.02.2025, the defendant no. 1, Chandan Kanti
Poddar, further transferred and gifted the very same portions of land and
structure earlier gifted to him by Late Loknath Poddar and defendant no. 2,
being land measuring about 10 Chhitacks and 30 square feet along with 300 sq.
ft. at the ground floor and 300 sq. ft. at the first floor (constituting in
total the said 2/6th undivided share), to his son, namely Shri Shuvam Poddar,
by executing a registered Deed of Gift recorded in Book No. I, Volume No.
1629-2025, Pages 27722 to 27741, being Gift Deed No. 162901294 of the year
2025, registered in the office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Garia,
West Bengal, on 21.03.2025.
15.
That pursuant to the said Gift Deed, the donee,
Shri Shuvam Poddar, duly accepted the gift, obtained possession of the gifted
portion and thereafter caused mutation of his name before the B.L. &
L.R.O., Rajpur–Sonarpur, in respect of the said gifted land and structure, and
has been paying rent and revenue to the Government of West Bengal. Thus, the
said 2/6th portion earlier held by the defendant no. 1 stands legally divested
from him and is now held exclusively by his son under valid transfer.
16.
That upon such transfer by way of the
registered Gift Deed dated 21.03.2025, the defendant no. 1 has thereafter
retained only his original inherited 1/6th undivided share in the suit property, being
the share devolving upon him on the demise of his mother Late Jamuna Bala
Poddar on 18.08.2020.
17.
That, therefore, after giving effect to (i) the
Gift Deed dated 01.03.2021 executed by Late Loknath Poddar and defendant no. 2
in favour of defendant no. 1 and (ii) the subsequent Gift Deed dated 21.03.2025
executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of his son, the remaining undivided land
area available for partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1
comes to 49
Chhitacks and 37.5 square feet (approx.).
18.
That as the plaintiffs collectively hold 3/6th (i.e., 50%) share in
the suit property and the defendant no. 1 retains only his 1/6th inherited
(i.e., 16.66%) share after divesting his earlier 2/6th share through the Gift
Deed dated 21.03.2025, the respective divisible shares in the residual land
measuring 49 Chhitacks 37.5 sq. ft. are calculated at 12
Chhitacks and 25 sq. ft. (approx.) per plaintiff and 12
Chhitacks and 25 sq. ft. (approx.) for defendant no. 1, thereby reflecting equal
1/4th division among the four co-sharers now legally entitled in the remaining
undivided property.
19.
It
is admitted that the suit property was purchased in the name of late Jamuna
Bala Poddar. However, it is specifically stated that the entire sale
consideration, construction cost, maintenance, development and subsequent
improvements were made solely out of the income and contributions of this
Defendant’s father late Loknath Poddar and this Defendant. The Plaintiffs,
being married daughters, never contributed any money, labour, or assistance in
acquiring or developing the suit property.
20.
It
is denied that the Plaintiffs jointly hold 3/5th share or that the Defendants
hold 2/5th share of the suit property. The calculation is wholly misconceived.
The father late Loknath Poddar died intestate on 06.02.2025 and his share
devolves equally upon all legal heirs including this Defendant. The alleged
division of shares stated by the Plaintiffs is incorrect and denied.
21.
It
is admitted that the Plaintiffs are residing in their matrimonial homes. It is
denied that this Defendant ever obstructed their entry into the suit property.
Such allegations are made with malafide intentions to create false grounds for
injunction.
22.
The
internal description of rooms may be partly correct but the Plaintiffs have no
knowledge of the suit property as they have never stayed in the premises for
the last several years.
23.
The
allegation that the Defendant misbehaves or ill-treats the Plaintiffs is
baseless and false. The Plaintiffs seldom visit the suit property and only come
when they want to create nuisance or threaten this Defendant. The Defendant is
a peaceful law-abiding citizen.
24.
It
is denied that this Defendant is trying to dispossess the Plaintiffs or trying
to forcibly take the entire property. It is further denied that the Defendant
is trying to sell any portion of the suit property. These allegations are
intentionally fabricated to seek an ex parte injunction order. The Plaintiffs
have come with false grievances merely to disturb the Defendant’s peaceful
possession and to extort money under the guise of partition.
25.
That the averment in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint that
a “three storied structure” stands on the suit land is false, incorrect and
denied.
In truth and in fact a two storied building
only exists on the suit property. The Plaintiffs have falsely and
deliberately stated the building to be three storied in order to exaggerate the
value and create a false impression before this Hon’ble Court. The Defendant
therefore denies that any three storeyed structure ever existed on the suit
premises. Save and except the admission of title of the late Jamuna Bala Poddar
as recorded in the sale deed, all other allegations in Paragraph 1 are denied.
26.
That the particulars set out in Paragraph 5 of the
Plaint are misconceived, factually incorrect and are expressly denied. Without prejudice to
the general denial, the Defendant states that the said premises are not divided
into formal flats nor are the rooms arranged as alleged by the Plaintiffs. The
correct facts are as follows: the ground floor contains a small habitable area
and appurtenant spaces; the first floor comprises a few small rooms (which may
loosely be described as “bed-rooms” by the Plaintiffs), a small kitchen-type
space, a narrow balcony-like projection and limited inter-room spaces; the
sanitary arrangements on the first floor consist of one toilet/bathroom (and
not two as alleged); the “second floor” is in truth a makeshift area consisting
largely of a store room and a
single toilet space covered by a tin roof shed and is not a regular habitable
floor. The Defendant therefore denies the Plaintiffs’ exaggerated enumeration
of rooms, kitchens and sanitary fittings and reiterates that the building is
neither planned nor constructed as alleged in the Plaint.
27.
That Paragraph 6 is wholly false, concocted and
denied.
The Defendant has never let or
rented any portion of the suit premises to any person at any time for the
purpose of deriving rent or income. The alleged tenants named in the Plaint
(Indrajit Das and Biswa Dey) are fictitious as tenants and the Plaintiffs’
averments about monthly rents in excess of Rs.15,000/- are wholly fabricated.
The Defendant states that no sum of money representing rent has been received
by him for the alleged period, and the Plaintiffs have no evidence of any
tenancy or rental receipts. The Plaintiffs’ account of continuous receipt of
rent and their claim to be deprived of rental income is, therefore, denied.
28.
The
Defendant reserves the right to give further details and to rely upon
documents, receipts, municipal records, site plan and oral evidence at the time
of trial to substantiate the above denials and the true physical configuration
of the suit property.
29.
That the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the
Plaint are absolutely false, baseless, concocted and are emphatically denied. The Defendant No.1,
Chandan Kanti Poddar, has never
harboured any such intention, nor has any such incident or occasion ever
arisen at any point of time within the knowledge of the Defendant No.1. The
Plaintiffs have made a wild allegation only to maliciously portray the
Defendant No.1 in an adverse manner before this Learned Court. The said
paragraph is therefore denied in toto.
30.
That the statements contained in Paragraph 8 of the
Plaint are wholly untrue and denied. The Plaintiffs never approached the Defendant No.1 at any time for any discussion
or request regarding partition or any other arrangement as falsely claimed by
them. The Plaintiffs are therefore put to strict proof of the allegations made therein by cogent evidence
before this Learned Court. In absence thereof, the entire paragraph is liable
to be rejected.
- That the Defendant No.1 denies the contents of
Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Plaint as concocted, fabricated and devoid of
any truth.
These paragraphs narrate a false
story invented by the Plaintiffs with a view to malign the
Defendant No.1 and create an artificial cause of action for filing the
present suit. The Plaintiffs have attempted to portray the Defendant No.1
as an adversary in the enjoyment of the suit property, which is entirely
imaginary and has no factual foundation. The Defendant No.1 has never
acted in any manner prejudicial to the rights of the Plaintiffs.
- That the allegation of cause of action as
pleaded in Paragraph 18 of the Plaint is misconceived, incorrect and is
specifically denied.
The Plaintiffs have merely mentioned certain dates without producing a
single document or material to demonstrate any real, subsisting or
enforceable cause of action against the Defendant No.1. A cause of action cannot be manufactured by citing dates,
and the Plaintiffs have filed the suit only on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations.
- That the Plaintiffs have further failed to
understand that in a partition suit, “cause of action” and “accrual of
cause of action” are two distinct legal concepts.
The accrual of cause of action for a partition arises only when there is
an assertion of hostile title, denial of share, refusal of partition, or
any overt act preventing joint enjoyment. None of these elements exist in the present case, nor have
they been pleaded properly. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim of cause of action
is illusory and untenable.
- That the Plaintiffs never issued any written
notice, request or communication to the Defendant No.1 seeking any
amicable partition
of the suit property, nor have they produced anything to show that such
request was ever made. In absence of such attempts, the filing of the
present suit is premature, motivated and not maintainable.
- That in view of the above, the present suit is
devoid of any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed in limine
under the settled principles governing partition suits.
- That the Defendant No.1 further states that the
description of the Schedule Property as given in the Plaint is incorrect,
incomplete and misleading. The measurements, boundaries,
layout and description of the structure mentioned in the Plaint do not
correctly represent the actual physical condition of the suit property.
The Plaintiffs have deliberately misstated the Schedule in order to suit
their wrongful narrative and to create confusion before this Learned
Court. The Defendant No.1 disputes and denies the Schedule as furnished by
the Plaintiffs and craves leave to produce the correct particulars at the
time of hearing.
- That
the contents of Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Plaint are
wholly incorrect, misleading, and are specifically denied. The
Plaintiffs have deliberately stated falsehoods to create an artificial
foundation for the present suit.
- That
it is categorically denied that the original papers or title documents
relating to the suit property are lying with this Defendant. In fact,
the Plaintiffs themselves have supplied the particulars of the Deed of
Conveyance under which the mother of the parties, late Jamuna Bala Poddar, became the
absolute owner of the suit property, as admitted by them in Paragraph 2 of
the Plaint. This shows clearly that the Plaintiffs are in possession of
the relevant originals and/or copies of such documents. Hence the
allegations that this Defendant has withheld any original papers are false
and untenable.
- That
the Plaintiffs never approached or communicated with this Defendant No.1
on any of the alleged dates, namely 07.12.2023, 30.06.2024 and 10.04.2025. No oral
request and no written request were ever made by the Plaintiffs for
partition, discussion or production of documents. The question of this
Defendant “avoiding” or “neglecting” any such request does not arise at
all. The entire narrative put forward by the Plaintiffs in these
paragraphs is invented and without any factual basis.
- That
the allegation that the Plaintiffs came to know about any supposed attempt
or intention of this Defendant to sell or dispose of the suit property is
absolutely false, baseless and concocted. Such
allegations have been deliberately fabricated to forcefully constitute a
cause of action so that the Plaintiffs may bring the present partition
suit before this Learned Court. No such intention was ever expressed or
acted upon by this Defendant at any point of time.
40.
That
in view of the above facts, the Plaintiffs have no basis, ground or entitlement
to claim any permanent injunction against this Defendant. The Plaintiffs have failed to
establish any threat, overt act or conduct on the part of the Defendant No.1
that may justify the grant of an injunction. It is reiterated that no cause of
action ever arose in relation to dispossession of the Plaintiffs or disturbance
of their alleged possession.
41.
That
the Defendant No.1 also states that the documents referred to in Paragraph 17
of the Plaint, so far as they are genuine and admissible, are relied upon to
the extent they support the true and correct state of affairs regarding the
genealogical succession and title of the parties. This Defendant further relies
on the additional documents annexed with this Written Statement for the proper
adjudication of the present partition suit.
42.
That
the contents of Paragraph 19 of the Plaint relating to the suit valuation and
court fees are wholly improper, incorrect and are expressly denied. The valuation made by the
Plaintiffs is not in accordance with the provisions of the Court-fees Act, 1870,
the Suits
Valuation Act, 1887, and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Plaintiffs have not disclosed any proper basis, calculation, method or
principle adopted for valuing the present partition suit. The valuation stated
in the Plaint is arbitrary, fanciful, and not supported by material
particulars.
43.
That
the suit valuation, as stated by the Plaintiffs, is so grossly deficient and
erroneous that this Learned Court lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain, try or adjudicate the present suit. The Plaintiffs have purposely
undervalued the suit property and the reliefs claimed with an ulterior motive
to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of this Court. Such improper
undervaluation vitiates the entire plaint.
44.
That
the Plaintiffs have failed to categorically and elaborately mention the
valuation of the Plaint as required for (a) the relief of partition, (b) the relief of permanent injunction,
and (c) the value of the Plaintiffs’
alleged share in the suit property.
In absence of such mandatory particulars, the plaint does not comply with the
requirements of Order
VII Rule 1(e) CPC, nor with the statutory scheme of valuation.
45.
That
due to such defects and non-compliance, the plaint has lost its entirety to be
proceeded with and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c)
CPC, for undervaluation and for failure to supply the details
required for correct valuation and proper payment of court fees.
46.
That
the prayers made by the Plaintiffs in the plaint are wholly misconceived,
untenable and not maintainable in view of the true and correct facts placed by
the Defendant No.1, herein Chandan Kanti Poddar. The Plaintiffs have falsely
claimed 3/5th
share in the suit property without any lawful basis, while
suppressing the material facts regarding succession, the execution of valid
gift deeds, and the actual share position after the demise of the parents of
the parties. In the true factual and legal scenario, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to 3/5th share,
nor are they entitled to any declaration of such share or to any relief based
on that erroneous claim.
47.
That
consequently, all other consequential prayers, including the prayer for
partition, permanent injunction, and any other reliefs flowing from the
Plaintiffs’ wrongful assertion of shares, are not maintainable and are liable
to be rejected.
The Plaintiffs’ entire claim is founded on incorrect genealogy of shares,
suppression of gift deeds, and fabricated allegations intended to portray an
illusory cause of action. Hence no relief sought by the Plaintiffs can be
granted in law or on facts.
48.
That
the Schedule of the property as described in the Plaint is not true, correct,
or reflective of the actual measurement and present physical status of the suit
property.
The Plaintiffs have incorrectly described the land as measuring 2 (two) Cottahas
without accounting for the lawful reduction of area arising from the valid Gift Deed executed
jointly by the father of the parties (Late Loknath Poddar) and Defendant No.2
(Sandha Roy) in favour of Defendant No.1, much prior to the
demise of the father. Upon such gift, the total land area available for
partition stood reduced
in accordance with the demarcated portion gifted and described in the
registered Deed of Gift.
49.
That
the Plaintiffs have further misrepresented the existing building structure. The property contains only a two-storied construction,
and not a three-storied building as alleged. The Plaintiffs’ description is
therefore factually incorrect and misleading.
50.
That
the “butted and bounded” particulars mentioned in the Plaint are also incorrect
and do not match the present physical, municipal or revenue records,
particularly after the reduction of land consequent to the aforesaid Gift Deed
and the subsequent change in boundaries, layout and possession status. The Plaintiffs have failed to
furnish the true and correct boundaries and, therefore, the Schedule of the
Plaint stands vitiated.
51.
That
in view of the above, the Plaintiffs’ Schedule cannot be relied upon for the
purposes of proper adjudication of the present partition suit, and the same is
specifically denied as incorrect, incomplete and misleading.
52.
That
the affidavit sworn and affirmed by Plaintiff No.3, namely Sabita Das Poddar,
in verification of the plaint, is fundamentally defective, improper and
contrary to the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and
therefore renders the plaint itself not maintainable. Plaintiff No.3 has nowhere
stated or averred in her affidavit that she has been authorised by Plaintiff No.1
(Gita Sarkar) to swear the affidavit on her behalf. Likewise,
she has not stated or averred that she has been authorised by Plaintiff No.2 (Rita Sikder) to swear and affirm the affidavit on
her behalf. In the absence of any such authorisation, the affidavit sworn by
Plaintiff No.3 on behalf of all Plaintiffs is wholly without jurisdiction and
legally unsustainable.
53.
That
it is evident from the face of the affidavit that Plaintiff No.3 has
unilaterally sworn the affidavit without the consent, authority or
participation of the other Plaintiffs. This itself shows that the plaint has been instituted at the instance of
Plaintiff No.3 alone, and the remaining Plaintiffs have not
even consented to or participated in the filing of the suit. The plaint,
therefore, is not maintainable for want of proper verification and lack of
joint intention to sue from all Plaintiffs, which is mandatory in a partition
suit.
54.
That
Plaintiff No.3 has stated in her affidavit that the contents of paragraphs 1 to
20 of the plaint are true to her knowledge and belief and that the “rest are
her humble submissions.”
However, the plaint, after paragraph 20, contains only the prayer portion and
then stands closed. Accordingly, her statement that “the rest are humble
submissions” is self-contradictory, vague and meaningless because no “rest” remains after
paragraph 20, thereby exposing that the affidavit is not sworn
in conformity with Order
VI Rule 15 CPC, and is defective on its face.
55.
That
such defective verification and affidavit go to the root of the maintainability
of the plaint.
A plaint in a partition suit must be duly verified by all Plaintiffs,
or by one
Plaintiff specifically authorised by the others. Since no such
authority is stated or proved, and since the affidavit is patently defective
and inconsistent, the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
56.
That
the present suit, therefore, suffers from fundamental procedural defects, lack
of authorisation, defective verification and absence of proper affirmation,
which render the plaint legally infirm and liable to be dismissed or rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
57.
Furthermore,
the Defendant No. 1 states that the Plaintiffs have nowhere relied upon or
produced any authorization in favour of the Plaintiff No. 3, namely Sabita Das
Poddar, empowering her to swear the affidavit or to present and verify the
plaint on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Gita Sarkar, or Plaintiff No. 2, Smt.
Rita Sikder. No document, resolution, power of attorney, vakalatnama-based
delegation, or any form of written authority has ever been annexed, disclosed,
or filed along with the plaint to demonstrate that Plaintiff No. 3 had any
lawful capacity under Order VI Rule 14 or Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC to verify
the plaint for and on behalf of the other plaintiffs.
58.
That
the Defendant No. 1 states that the Plaintiffs have not impleaded necessary
parties who are vital and indispensable for effective adjudication of the
present partition suit. In particular, the gift donee, Shri Shuvam Poddar, who
presently holds valid title and possession over 2/6th portion of the suit
property by virtue of the registered Deed of Gift dated 21.03.2025, has not
been made a party to the suit. In absence of such necessary party, no final
decree for partition can be passed. The suit is therefore bad for non-joinder
of necessary and proper parties and is liable to be dismissed.
59.
That
the Plaintiffs have also not impleaded the municipal authority, B.L. 55. & L.R.O., or any other
authority whose records reflect the changed status of the property, mutation
entries and the post-gift boundaries. Any adjudication of title or share
without such necessary parties will result in an ineffective decree. Hence the
suit suffers from inherent defects.
60.
That
the Defendant No. 1 submits that the Plaintiffs have not filed any document in
support of their alleged share calculation, nor produced any deed, record, map,
rent receipt, municipal tax receipt, or revenue document to substantiate their
claims. The Plaintiffs have relied solely on self-serving statements without
any documentary proof, which makes the plaint speculative and devoid of
substance.
61.
That
the Plaintiffs have purposely suppressed the duly registered Gift Deeds dated
01.03.2021 and 21.03.2025, though both are matters of public record. The
Plaintiffs’ deliberate omission to disclose such vital documents clearly
demonstrates suppression of material facts, which by itself disentitles them to
any equitable relief including injunction or declaration.
62.
That
the Defendant No. 1 states that he has always remained in peaceful, exclusive
physical possession of his lawful portion of the property and continues to use
and enjoy the same without interference. The Plaintiffs have no joint
possession in fact or in law over the structure or the land demarcated to the
Defendant and his donee. Therefore, the claim for injunction is wholly
baseless.
63.
That
the Plaintiffs are estopped from denying the validity, possession and effect of
the registered Gift Deeds executed by their own father and their own sister.
They have never challenged the said Gift Deeds in any competent court of law.
Hence, they cannot now claim any share in the already gifted property or
question the rights of the donee.
64.
That
the Defendant states that the Plaintiffs have approached this Hon’ble Court
with unclean hands, suppressed material facts, misstated the schedule,
concocted false allegations, and artificially manufactured a cause of action.
Therefore, they are not entitled to any discretionary or equitable relief as
sought in the plaint.
65.
That
the present suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts, in view of the
following reasons:
66.
The
suit is undervalued and suffers from deficiency of court fees;
(a) The plaint is verified in
violation of Order VI Rule 15 CPC;
(b) The suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary
parties such as the gift donee;
(c) The Plaintiffs have no present
possession over the suit property;
(d) No cause of action has arisen;
(e) The Plaintiffs’ statement of shares is legally
incorrect;
(f) The Plaintiffs have suppressed material
documents;
(g) The Schedule of the Plaint is defective and
misleading.
67.
That
the Defendant denies all allegations in the plaint which are not specifically
dealt with in this Written Statement. The Defendant craves leave to file
additional pleadings or amendments if circumstances require.
68.
Therefore,
the plaint suffers from a fundamental defect in verification and presentation,
going to the root of maintainability. The failure to file any authorization
vitiates the very institution of the suit, rendering the entire pleading non
est in the eye of law. Such a plaint, lacking mandatory compliance with the
procedural requirements of the CPC, is liable to be rejected in limine under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC with exemplary costs.
In view of the above,
this Defendant respectfully prays that this Learned Court may graciously be
pleased to;
a)
Dismiss the suit with exemplary costs;
b)
Hold that the Plaintiffs have no cause of action;
c)
Hold that the suit is undervalued and insufficiently
stamped;
d)
Reject the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC;
e)
Grant such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the
defendant as in duty bound shall ever pray.
VERIFICATION
I,
Chandan Kanti Poddar, Defendant
No. 1 above named, do hereby verify that the statements made in paragraphs 1 to
58 are true to my knowledge and belief, and I sign this verification at
Baruipur on this ___ day of ______, 2025.
Defendant No.
1
(Chandan Kanti Poddar)
AFFIDAVIT
I,
Chandan Kanti Poddar, son of
Late Loknath Poddar, aged about ___ years, by faith Hindu, by occupation
Business, residing at Kalitala, Post Office – Laskarpur, Police Station
Naredrapur, Kolkata - 700153, District South 24-Parganas, presently Defendant
No. 1 in the above-noted suit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows;
1. That I am the
Defendant No. 1 in the above-mentioned suit and as such I am fully conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am competent and authorised to
swear this affidavit.
2. That the statements
and averments made in paragraphs 1 to
___ of the Written Statement filed by me today are true to my knowledge, based on the records and
documents available with me.
3. That nothing material
has been suppressed in the Written Statement, and the same has been drafted
under my instruction and after perusal of the relevant facts and documents.
4. That I swear this
affidavit to support and affirm the contents of the Written Statement filed by
me against the plaint, which contains false, incorrect and misleading
statements.
DEPONENT
Identified by
me,
Advocate
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate
Date : ___________2025
Place : Baruipur, South 24 Parganas
N O T A R Y
very useful
ReplyDelete