IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE: AT BANGALORE
O.S. No. 26835/2013
BETWEEN:
Smt. Muniyamma … Plaintiff
AND:
Sri. Nanjamma and Another … Defendants
WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
The Defendant No.1 begs to submit as under:
1. At the outset the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of
injunction against the defendants in respect of the schedule property is
not maintainable either in law or facts of the case. There is no truth,
merits or bona fides in the plaint averments and as such the suit is liable
to be dismissed. That the plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble
Court with clean hands and have suppressed the true and correct facts
and the averments which are not specifically traversed herein are hereby
denied as false and incorrect and the plaintiffs are called upon to strict
proof of the same.
2. That the averments made by Plaintiff in para 5 of the Plaint are false and
baseless as, the defendant is the absolute owner of the property No.1657 and 6578 and
new No 13 and No.15, PID No 012- W1243-20 and PID No 012-W8917-22, 3rd cross,
‘C’ block, Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore – 560 003, hereunder and hereinafter referred
to as the Schedule ‘C’ Property for the sake of brevity. The Defendant is not the real
owner of the property as mentioned in the Plaint by the plaintiff. That the husband of the
Defendant No .1 late B. Govindappa has acquired the above said Schedule ‘C’ property
under a Sale Deed dated 15.01.1966 from his vendor Sri Venkatesh for valuable Sale
Consideration, which is registered as document No.7865/1966-67, in Book-II, Volume
No.777, at page 98 to 101, in the office of the Sub-Registrar Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
The copy of the Sale Deed is herewith enclosed as Document No.1.
3. The Defendant submits that her husband Sri.B. Govindappa died on
09.03.2011 leaving behind the Defendant No 1, Son and Daughter. The Death
Certificate is herewith enclosed as Document No.2. Thereafter the Defendant No 1
made an application before the Assistant Revenue Officer, Subramanya Nagar Ward,
BBMP, Bangalore, for transfer of Khatha and other revenue records in her name in
respect of the schedule property. The concerned authority has transferred Khatha of
schedule property in the name of Defendant No 1 and assessed the property to revenue
and has paid taxes to the concerned authority. The Defendant is herewith furnishing the
Khatha Certificate, Khatha Extract and Tax paid receipts as Document No.3 to 5. The
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has also issued confirmation letter indicating
that the earlier site No.6644 being assigned with Municipal No.54/7 under letter dated
13.11.2010. The Copy of the said letter is herewith enclosed as Document No.6. The
Defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property and exercising
all the rights of true ownership over the schedule property.
4. That the Plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing No.50/3, 2nd Cross, A
Block, Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore – 560 003 measuring east to west on the
southern side 42 feet, on the western side 46 feet and north to south 15 feet in all
measuring 660 [Link]. with residential building which is more fully and particularly
described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule ‘A’
Property for the sake of brevity. The Defendent is herewith enclosing the sketch
seeking sanction of plan before the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike authorities
and the same is here within enclosed as Document No. 7 in the Plaint. The said sketch
clearly indicates the boundaries of both the schedule properties.
5. That the averments made by Plaintiff in para 6 of the Plaint are false and
baseless as the Defendant has obtained the sanction plan and license from the BBMP
to put up new construction vide LP [Link]/WST/7638/22-23 dated 16.05.2014 and
the sanction plan and licence from the BBMP vide LP [Link]/WST/0282/14-15
dated 28.11.2014 as mentioned in the Plaint by the Plaintiff does not belong to the
Defendant No 1. As per the sanctioned plan to put up new construction vide vide LP
[Link]/WST/7638/22-23 dated 16.05.2014, the Defendant No.1 is entitled to put up
basement, ground and, three upper floors only on the said property. The Defendant No
1 is herewith enclosing the sanctioned plan and license as Document No.8 & 9. As per
the sanctioned plan issued by the BBMP, Defendant No1 and Defendent No 2,has
made construction leaving setbacks as per the plan and the photographs of the same is
enclosed as Document No. 8. And 9.
6. That the Defendant No.1 has engaged the Defendant No.2 to put up the
construction and also Defendant No.2 is the General Power of Attorney Holder of the
Defendant No.1. The Defendants are putting up the construction as per the sanctioned
plan and license by the BBMP authorities. That the said construction carried on by the
Defendants is legal and as per law. The Defendant is put to lot of inconvenience by the
false allegations made by the Plaintiff and there is no peacefulness to the Defendant.
The Defendant has requested the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit, but the Plaintiff have
ignored the request and deliberately putting false allegations on Defendants due to
personal grudges.. The Defendants are herewith furnishing the photographs and CD as
Document No.10 & 11.
7. That the averments made by Plaintiff in para 8 of the Plaint are false and
baseless as the property inspected by the BBMP does not belong to Defendant No 1.
The construction on the property of the Defendant No 1 is running smoothly without
causing any nuisance to the neighbors and also to general public. The Plaintiff due to
his Personal grudges is dragging the Defendants to the court and wasting both
Defendants and Court’s precious time.
8. That the entire act of the Plaintiff is highly illegal, contrary to law, amounts to
high-handedness. The defendant’s lawful right has to be protected by dismissing the
suit filed by the Plaintiff.
9. That the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court and as such this Hon’ble Court has got territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction to try the suit.
Prayer
Wherefore the Defendants most humbly prays that the Hon’ble
Court be pleased to dismiss the above suit with exemplary costs in the
interest of justice and equity.
Advocate for Defendants Defendant No.1
Defendant No 2
VERIFICATION
I, [Link] W/o. late B. Govindappa, the Defendant No.1, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state that this is my name and signature and the
contents of this written statement of objection are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Bangalore.
Date: 14.11.2014 Defendant No.1
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE: AT BANGALORE
O.S. No. 26835/2013
BETWEEN:
Smt. Muniyamma … Plaintiffs
AND:
Sri. Nanjamma and Another … Defendants
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, [Link] W/o. late B. Govindappa , aged 56 years, Residing at
No.51/3, 2nd Cross, A Block, Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore – 560 003 , do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-
1. I am the Defendant No 1 in the above case and We know facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit.
2. I submit that the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 9 in the
accompanying Written Statement are true to the best of my knowledge,
belief and information.
VERIFICATION
I, Smt Nanjamma, the Deponent do hereby state that this is my name and
signature and the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate. Sworn to Before Me
Bangalore,
Date: 14.11.2014
No of corrections:
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE: AT BANGALORE
O.S. No. 26835/2013
BETWEEN:
Smt. Muniyamma Plaintiffs
AND:
Sri. Nanjamma and Another Defendants
OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Defendant No.1 above named begs to submit as under:
1. At the outset, the applications filed by the plaintiff is neither
maintainable in law nor on facts and the plaintiff has not approached
this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. The application is devoid of merits
and lacks bonafides hence the same has to be dismissed in limine. The
plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and has sworn to false and
incorrect affidavit in support of application and thereby committed an
offence of perjury. The written statement of the Defendant may be read
as part and parcel of this objection to avoid repetition.
2. That Defendant No 1 is not the real owner of property bearing old
No.2235 and 2236 and new No 51 and No.52, PID No 065- W0060-19 and PID No 065-
W0060-15, 2nd cross, ‘A’ block, Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore – 560 003, which is
mentioned as Schedule ‘B’ property in the plaint by the plaintiff. But
Defendant No 1 is the absolute owner of property bearing No.1657 and 6578
and new No 13 and No.15, PID No 012- W1243-20 and PID No 012-W8917-22, 3rd
cross, ‘C’ block, Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore – 560 003, which is mentioned as
Schedule ‘C’ property in the written statement by the Defendant No 1.
Since the property of Defendant No 1 is not the subject matter of the suit
filed by the plaintiff, all the allegations made against Defendant No 1 are
false and baseless.
3. That the husband of the Defendant No .1 late B. Govindappa has acquired the
above said Schedule ‘C’ property under a Sale Deed dated 15.01.1966 from his vendor
Sri Venkatesh for valuable Sale Consideration, which is registered as document
No.7865/1966-67, in Book-II, Volume No.777, at page 98 to 101, in the office of the
Sub-Registrar Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The copy of the Sale Deed is furnished.
4. That the sanction plan and licence from the BBMP vide LP
[Link]/WST/0282/14-15 dated 28.11.2014 as mentioned in the Plaint by the
Plaintiff does not belong to the Defendant No 1 . But the Defendant No 1 has obtained
the sanction plan and license from the BBMP to put up new construction vide LP
[Link]/WST/7638/22-23 dated 16.05.2014, which is not the subject matter of the
suit, plaintiffs have filed the above false suit making false claim. The copy
of the sanction plan and license is furnished.
5. That the property inspected by the BBMP as mentioned in the plaint does not
belong to Defendant No 1. The construction on the property of the Defendant
No 1 is running smoothly without causing any nuisance to the neighbors and
also to general public. The Plaintiff due to his Personal grudges is dragging
the Defendants to the court and wasting both Defendants and Court’s
precious time.
6. That the Plaintiff have failed to make out a prima facie case and
have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and as
such the discretionary relief cannot be bestowed on the Plaintiff
by this Hon'ble Court. The Plaintiff have not proved their
possession over the schedule property and the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the Defendant. Thus viewed from
any prospect the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of
Temporary Injunction. The plaintiff are misleading this Hon’ble
Court and thereby trying to misdirect this Hon’ble Court to pass
the orders on the frivolous application filed by the plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE THE Defendant No.1 most humbly prays that this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the above application with
exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
Advocate for Defendant No.1 Defendant No.1
VERIFICATION
I, Nanjamma, the defendant No. 1 do hereby solemnly affirm and
state that this is my name and signature and the contents of this written
statement of objection are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
Bangalore.
Date: 14.11.2014 Defendant No.1
