IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADpy/TIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MADuRAl O.S.NO. 86 OF 2021 P. Periyasamy ..-Plaintiff Vs- Panchavarnam . Manivannan. Chellappa. Tlavarasi. apswone Alli. ...Defendants WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON THE SIDE OF THE 1*t DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 of C.P.C The entire averments and allegations mentioned in the plaint are denied as false, frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff should be put to strict proof of the same. The plaintiff has come forward with the suit which is devoid of merits, unsustainable in law and on facts. The suit has to be dismissed on the ground that the suit averments have suppressed facts and depicted false averments. The suit filed for partition is unsustainable on the ground PS that the plaintiff has no locus standi and that the plaintiff should strictly prove the locus standi to claim partition. The plaintiff has suppressed the real happening in the family and that the plaintiff has not stated as to the nature and character of the properties, which is most essential in a suit of such nature. “ F Fanjasermam -7 tioned in the pla; ts and allegations men He 3. The entire averments Jy stated this first defendant ana para 4 is denied as wrone) ni, are having thre a Pattumant, her husband namely Late-Pr 4 and third |e secon sons and one daughter ‘The plaintilh, S66 the daughter. efendant 1S . sfendants are sons and the fifth defen defendant jons an dant ana the Y i ent The fourth defendant is the wife of third defe! ndant. The fourth defendant daughter in law of the first defe1 neal for eee bad fo has been wrongly included and hence the suit 1S misjoinder of parties. 5 4. The entire averments and allegations mentioned in para are false, frivolous and vexatious. It is incorrect to state that Late Sri.Pattumani died intestate on 14.12.2019. It is a clear case of suppression and depicting falsely that there is no testament. It would be travesty of justice to enjoy the benefits of the registered document and to hide when the same is not beneficial to the plaintiff. t is incorrect to state that this first defendant was a mere house wife without any income and that her husband alone was earning by having a rice trade. The suppression of the fact that this first defendant was assisting her husband in trade, made with ulterior motive. The family business of Panchavarnam Rice Mill and the earnings from the business has deliberately being suppressed. The plaintiff should strictly prove the need and necessity for such suppression. The plaintiff should be put to strict proof of proving the same. The averments that the plaintiff along with his brothers were working with his father and were living under one roof are incorrect statements. The plaintiff had never assisted his father and ness activity of his father. It is mentioned properties are they are common has never involved in any pusi incorrect to state that the schedule bearing different names and that eo. Faproperties carned ncorree ‘rough incorrect 10 state that out Me yehedule F property. I ig of schedule propert Meome from the rice trading the excep, liye WERE PUTChased The entir ‘© averments mi S and all in Ph is denies legations in Para 6 of the plai enied as false, frivolous O plaint plaintiff should Prove « ang vexatious and that the ‘Ach and eyery one Of the same, It is every is ‘ate that ‘A’ g\ ' Schedule in 1975 and ‘B’ Schedule : incorrect to st properly Was purchased in 2019 and ‘C’ Schedule in 2003 Plaintiff s Should prove the averments in consonance with wnat has been stated regarding 1p’ schedule of property, The plaintiff should prove the nature of purchas? and link of the Purchased Documents of 41h defendant 1 the suit. This Defendant denies that the property of the 4 defendant has never been put in joint hatch-pot; but purchased and kept as individual property. The inclusion of the property of the 4" defendant is with ulterior motive and absolutely illegal. The plaintiff should prove the averments pertaining to ‘E’ Schedule of property. Regarding ‘#” Schedule of property the plaintiff should prove with the accounts and other papers regarding the Kamarajar Salai branch “Parasakthi Rice mill” and PPT Traders and Sethu ricemill at Kappalur. The suppression is deliberate, wanton, malafide and also fraudulent. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to hide and suppress in the court of law, ought to come with clean hands. 6. This defendant submits that the husband of the Is defendant and the 1* defendant along with their children made amicable settlement of their family properties. The suit ‘E’ Schedule property was allotted to the 1st defendant along with the 48 cents purchased in ‘D’ Schedule. The claim of the : CP Pjeusoernonaind als plaintiff to include the property of awn defendant : " uo i settlement in individually settled properties out of amicable sett! y and to drag the family is only to give trouble to entire famil: an A itude. e the family to court for his envious: and malafide attil aised the plaintiff has not answered as to wh dispute regarding the deed of settleme 9014 or during the life time of father prove the need and necessity to come to court at his stage. ‘The entire averments and allegations in para 7 of the plaint is denied as false, frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff should prove each and every one of the same: ‘The averments and allegations pertaining to documents executed by the husband of the 1** defendant has been illegal and with contempt ridiculed. This exhibits the plaintiff's attitude and to disrespect the wish of elders including his father. It is for the plaintiff to prove is to what are all the documents alleged in the said para and which of them there being considered as shame and nominal documents, It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff nas any rights whatsoever and he has to prove the same. The entire averments and allegations in Para 8 of the plaint js denied as false, frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff should prove each and every one of the same. The averments pertaining to the settlement deed is deliberately malafide and purposefully mentioned in @ disparaging note. The said document was executed by this 1st defendant and her husband in favor of all the children with same yardstick giving equal shares to equal value: ‘This plaintiff had been having a spendthrift life demanding more money quite often, in fact he was instrumental i? closure of the family firm G.Pajomrenbusiness in Kamarajar g, which belongs to the tae ranch ant the profit he got nature of the plaintifr's ae Wag never accounted firm. By the cee haracter and to prevent any future Ng each and every member of the family, this 1st def lefendant and jer tusband have settled all the properties pur Purchased jn their AMCs: The deed of settlement was exec ‘aS executed ji ted in 9913 and the same was acted upon by all the respecti respective allotees. This defendants and the plaintiff have also ace} also accepted the settlement and got mutation of records in thei their name. The gact that the deed was acted n and wi ‘i upon and was not questioned «ill the life time of the father, the husband of the 1* Defendant and that present litigation questioning the deed after accepting the property is not only n. The piaintiff is not entitled illegal but also fraudulent claim for any partition when he has already accepted the settlement with the family which was executed keeping in mind to resolve any disputes which MAY arise amongst the children of this defendant. This is equally incorrect and g the 4% defendant and her property w property purchased out of her Stridhana. The prove that the property illegal to dra hich is her exclusive plaintiff should of the 4t& defendant is the property of the joint family. allegations in Para9 of the plaint is exatious and that the plaintiff denied as false, frivolous and ve one of the same. ‘The plaintiff 9, The entire averments and should prove each and evely has deliberately, wantonly and has illegally value for each property which is baseless, illegal and either exorbitant or far below undervalued. The plaintiff should prove the valuation of tl given whimsical ne each property as per the valuation ould dismiss for suppression and given in plaint. The suit $ mily got divided even in 2013 and defective valuation. The faioever from any rights whats not of the family evel participated in any aintift that the P 4013, the plainil’ hes" 2013, The plat je Husband of this defendant intiff, Being such breakage in the 013 itself, was functions and only ia house of the p ip #8 well as property from 2 prove that he has got any right The plaintiff should cluding the visiting the tionsh tiff 10 n has « value of the movables in but also the monetary joint family relat it is for the plain . been made. whatsoever the claitt mad also answer strictly (2 from the family ney obtained from kamarajar salai share jewels he has received benefits including the mol nesses. The plaintiff is mentioned in the suit schedule. branch busi not entitled to any in the properties 10 of the nts and allegations in Para it the frivolous and vexatious and thal 4 every one of the same. It is intiff has ever approached this especially on 04.12.2020. The 10, The entire averme plaint is denied as false, plaintiff should prove each an incorrect to state that the plaii defendant at any point of time, te given is a fictitious and concocted one and that the fe. The plaintiff has suppressed p to U.G in Commerce and on were started de. plaintiff should prove the sam the fact that he was educated uy blishments three occasions business estal ¢ funds of the family. The exclusively for him and loosing th details and the values spent on plainti ¢ the fact that he has iff should have to be produced by the piaintiff and to Prov not received anything from the family. 11, The entire averments and allegations in Para 11 of the plaint is denied as false, frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff should prove each and every one of the same. This defendant submits that the value of ‘F’ schedule mentioned “nj stone YWer in the plaint itself is Wrong ang suppressed: The business firms which are start ayo19 in the na fed on the funds of the Joint family prior 0 me F 1 nes have bi Of plaintify and the Value spent for such si een Suppressed, 1 is fOF the plaintiff to prove pe plaint ‘F’ Sch bite chedule property ¢g properly stated and there is no suppressio pression. The ‘pr gojedule mentioned about gency for rive, «pattumani Stores” is only ission @ commission 4 ‘There was no an y investment whatsoever from the family husband of the 1* aid business was cloged by th? fund. The 3x4 defendant on his defendant even during his life time. The own accord has started the same business using the same name and getting his own registration number from the government. The attempt being made by the plaintiff to suppress the rice mill given to pim ard include the rice commission agency shop is not been eq! he profit and earnings nly illegal but also uated to that. fraudulent and that both can never The pl out the rice mill he was holding, Iti get defendant has transferred th t to state that the source of income belongs to joint tthe properties of the 3° aintiff has to prove regarding t s incorrect to state that the ¢ rice shop and also incorrect family. It is incorrect to state thal defendant in his individual capacit joint family as the joint family got divide and bounds of property but also in relations! from the allegations # ry has any nexus to the d not only by meets hip, as is evident n Para 1] exposing the inimical fight ed defendant. The plaintiff and the hands. The between brothers, the yme to court with unclean envious plaintiff has co wer his own earnings, right from the family. The vision by plaintiff should also ans\ enefits he got out of joint beginning to prove the bi has clearly made a di husband of the 1 Defendant 2013 Documents and also by a amicable settl happened in 2013. To reope’ ‘lement the partition happened in 2013sty thereof are to be by the plaintiff at this stage and the legality there : proved by the plaintiff. . ; 12 of the 12. The entire averments and allegations 10 Para i that the plaint is denied as false, frivolous and vexatious and thal F . The plaintiff should prove each and every one of the same 1c plaintiff should strictly prove the value and reason for non- entitlement and should further prove regarding the allegation of assurances. 13. The entire averments and allegations in Para 13 of the plaint is denied as false, frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff should prove each end every one of the same. The envious plaintiff whose main grudge is only pertains to the ‘D’ Schedule property. 10 cents of the property was purchased by the 4th defendant from out of her stridhana. This defendant and her husband independently purchased 24 cents each from their earnings. Out of the 24 cents purchased by this 1s defendant, she has cxecuted a settlement deed with 6 cents each to 2”, 3% and 5ih defendants by separate documents with rights of ingress and egress to their properties. These settlement deeds executed by the 1s defendant are out of her own will and pleasure and she has every right to do so. The plaintiff herein has never jomt with the family and hes been creating trouble right through his life. He got married on his own and he is not having the habit of attending any family functions thereafter. Now only with ulterior motive to extract money from the 1* Defendant and other defendants he has come forward with this plaint, as this defendant has not allotted any property to the plaintiff. 2 PagerThe entire a 4 averments 14. of the icden " plaint is denied ag false. id Allegations in Para plaintiff should proye © "Wolous and vexatious and that the each and cause of action me, everyone of the same, The Nitio; fraudulent. Ned in the plaint is false and 15. This 1s defend ant i denies the yaluation made in suit as incorrect and the plainti ee ae Shoyjd make to prove them as ion. Th © Court fee paid is incorrect as there w a division in status i in 5 i 2013 and there is no jointness to claim for fixed court fe . ors fee. The plaintiff jg not entitled for any of the right and the plainti plaintiff should strict prove of the same and entitlement. The plaintiff should prove the payment of court fee and the suit valuation as correct. 16. The plaintiff should prove the schedule of property 4s they are either incorrectly stated or deliberately suppressed and wrongly included. The plaintiff should prove the schedule of property as correct. The Defendant reserves her right to file additional written statement if any in future if advised to file the same. This defendant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit with costs and thus render justice. this the 13" day of September 2021. Dated at Madurai on Counsel for 1st Defendant 1 Defendanti rt VERIFICATION 1, Panchavarnam, the 1° Defendant in the suit, do hereby verify and declare tat what is stated in the above paragraphs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Verified at Madurai on this the 13th day of September 2021. 1st Defendantyo BEFORE THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT AT MADURAI 0.8. No. 86 of 2021 a WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON THE SIDE OF THE 1" DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED UNDER ORDER Vill RULE 1 of C.P.C ee Panchavarnam and 4 others Petitioners/Defendants Vs- P.Periasamy ..Respondent/Plaintiff ADVOCATES S.MADHAVAN M.KARTHIKEYAVENKITACHALAPATHY N.RAJAJL M.SENTHIL PRASAD KJEGAN