Written Statement

Written Statement

1. IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF :-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO
THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS
1.That at the very outset, it is submitted that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs
is not maintainable as the same is without any cause of action and is
vague, misconceived, based on wrong facts and deserves to be
dismissed with costs.
2.That it is a classic case of abuse of process of law where the Plaintiffs
who are the real sisters of the answering Defendant had given up their
rights, if any, in the suit property in favor of their brother i.e. the
answering Defendant upon the death of their father in the year 1983 as

2. the other brother i.e. Brahma Nand (since deceased) had during the
lifetime of their father had left the parental home and snapped all
relations with his parents and siblings and started residing separately.
The Plaintiffs who were already married at the time of death of their
father in the year 1983, upon father’s death, consented to the
answering Defendant being the absolute owner of the suit property and
had no objection if the answering Defendant sold the said property and
kept the sale proceeds for his personal needs.
3.That due to the answering Defendant’s personal needs, the suit
property was declared in the market for sale since a very long time
which was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and the entire
locality and when the answering Defendant decided to sell the property
in the year 2009 to Defendant No. 2 and received Rs. 10,00,000/- as
earnest money, he disclosed about the same to his sisters i.e. the
Plaintiffs, who also gave their NOC to the answering Defendant for
selling the said property to Defendant No. 2.
4.That the sale deed of the aforesaid property was executed by the
answering Defendant in favor of Defendant No. 2 in April, 2016 itself

3. which was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and after more
than 8 years of receiving the earnest money from Defendant No. 2 and
more than 1 year of execution of the sale deed, the Plaintiffs had filed
this frivolous suit with the sole intention of harassing the Defendant
herein and illegally extort money from the answering Defendant.
5.That even otherwise as per the allegations in the plaint itself, the suit of
the Plaintiffs is barred by law i.e. law of inheritance as envisaged
before Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force on
09.09.2005. It is pertinent to mention here that the father of the
Plaintiffs and the answering Defendant died in 1983 while a daughter
can only hold a right to father’s property if the father has died after this
amendment came into force in 2005. In other words, the father would
have to be alive till 09.09.2005, for the daughter to become a co-sharer
of his property along with her male siblings. The answering Defendant
reserves its right to move a separate detailed Application in this regard
for rejection of plaint in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6.That the present suit is also liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs
as the same is frivolous and is a gross abuse of the process of law. It is

4. most respectfully submitter that the Plaintiffs have not approached this
Hon’ble Court with clean hands by not disclosing and misrepresenting
material facts. The present suit is false, frivolous, misconceived and
vexatious in nature and has been filed with the sole intention of
harassing the Defendant herein and illegally extort money from the
answering Defendant.
7.That it is the enshrined principle of equity that “one who comes to court
must come with clean hands” and since the Plaintiffs have concealed
the material facts and has not approached this Hon’ble Court with true
facts, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
8.That all the allegations contained in the present suit under reply are
denied unless they are specifically admitted.
PARAWISE REPLY
1.That the contents of para 1 – 2 with reference to the relationship of the
answering Defendant with the Plaintiffs and their parentage is not
denied by the answering Defendant, also the ownership and

5. registration details of the suit property are not denied by the answering
Defendant.
2.That the contents of para 3 – 4 as stated by the Plaintiffs are wrong and
hence denied. Though it is admitted that Shri Khajan Singh died
intestate on 01.06.1983 at Delhi and his wife Smt. Kalawati also died
intestate on 03.05.1989, it is denied that the Plaintiffs were left behind
as legal heirs as only the male members of the family i.e. Late Brahma
Nand (since deceased) and the answering Defendant were left behind
as the only legal heirs and not the Plaintiffs herein. It is admitted that
after death of Late Shri Khajan Singh and his wife Smt. Kalawati, their
two sons i.e. the answering Defendant and Shri Brahma Nand
succeeded to the estate of their deceased father Late Shri Khajan
Singh but it is denied that the two daughters i.e. the Plaintiffs herein
also succeeded to the estate of their deceased father Late Shri Khajan
Singh as stated above for the aforesaid reasons.
3.That the contents of para 5 with reference to Shri Brahma Nand who
expired on 25.01.2005 is not denied by the answering Defendant.

6. 4.That the contents of para 6 – 7 as stated by the Plaintiffs are wrong and
hence denied. Though it is admitted that the said tenants are occupying
the suit property, it is denied that since the death of parents, Plaintiffs
were also in joint and constructive possession of the suit property or
used to collect rent and divide rent from the tenants as only the
answering Defendant was in constructive possession of the suit
property after death of his father and the Plaintiffs had no right in the
suit property for the aforesaid reasons.
5.That the contents of para 8 – 14 as stated by the Plaintiffs are wrong
and hence denied in toto. It is denied that after death of parents, the
Plaintiffs had repeatedly requested the answering Defendant to
partition the suit property by metes and bound as stated. It is further
denied that the tenants informed the Plaintiffs that Defendant No. 1 had
sold the suit property to Defendant No. 2 as stated. It is further denied
that the answering Defendant had illegally got the suit property mutated
in his name in the records of MCD by giving any false declaration. It is
further denied that the Plaintiffs have any share in the suit property or
are entitled to 2/3 share in the suit property or entitled to its partition.

7. True and correct facts are that the Plaintiffs who are the real sisters of
the answering Defendant had given up their rights, if any, in the suit
property in favor of their brother i.e. the answering Defendant upon the
death of their father in the year 1983 as the other brother i.e. Brahma
Nand (since deceased) had during the lifetime of their father had left
the parental home and snapped all relations with his parents and
siblings and started residing separately. The Plaintiffs who were
already married at the time of death of their father in the year 1983,
upon father’s death, consented to the answering Defendant being the
absolute owner of the suit property and had no objection if the
answering Defendant sold the said property and kept the sale proceeds
for his personal needs. Due to the answering Defendant’s personal
needs, the suit property was declared in the market for sale since a
very long time which was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and
the entire locality and when the answering Defendant decided to sell
the property in the year 2009 to Defendant No. 2 and received Rs.
10,00,000/- as earnest money, he disclosed about the same to his
sisters i.e. the Plaintiffs, who also gave their NOC to the answering
Defendant for selling the said property to Defendant No. 2. The sale

8. deed of the aforesaid property was executed by the answering
Defendant in favor of Defendant No. 2 in April, 2016 itself which was
well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and after more than 8 years
of receiving the earnest money from Defendant No. 2 and more than 1
year of execution of the sale deed, the Plaintiffs had filed this frivolous
suit with the sole intention of harassing the Defendant herein and
illegally extort money from the answering Defendant.
6.That the contents of para 15 – 16 as stated by the Plaintiffs are wrong
and hence denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to partition of
the suit property by metes and bound or to separation of two third
share in the suit property or declaration of sale deed executed by the
Defendant as null and void on the ground that it is affecting the rights of
the Plaintiffs.
7.That the contents of para 17 are wrong and denied in toto as there was
never any cause of action for filing the present suit by the Plaintiffs
against the answering Defendant.

9. 8.That the contents of para 18 are admitted to the extent of jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court.
9.That the contents of para 19 are wrong and denied.
10.That the last para of the suit is the prayer clause which is misconceived
and based on wrong facts and is emphatically denied. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most respectfully stated that the
Plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed in the said para. It
is denied that in the present case decree of partition in favor of
Plaintiffs and against the answering Defendant can be passed or
determine the share of Plaintiffs as two upon three undivided share as
stated by the Plaintiffs. It is further denied that decree for declaration
declaring the Plaintiffs are two third owners of suit property can be
passed or the sale deed executed by the Defendant can be declared
illegal or void. It is further denied that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any
other order or costs of the present suit.

10. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss
the present suit with exemplary costs.
DEFENDANT NO. 1
Through
(RAJ VARDHAN / RASHMI RAJ VARDHAN)
Advocates
D – 9, Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
Ph. No. ([phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
New Delhi
24.04.2018
VERIFICATION :
Verified at New Delhi on this 24
th
day of April, 2018 that the contents of para 1
to 8 of the preliminary submissions and objections and the contents of para 1
to 10 of the parawise reply of the above written statement are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge on the basis of information received and believed
to be true, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom. Last para is prayer to this Hon’ble court.
DEFENDANT NO. 1

11. IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF :-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
AFFIDAVIT
I, Tilak Raj S/o Late Khajan Singh aged about 72 years R/o 226, Village
Asauda Sewan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District – Rohtak, Haryana, presently in
New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1.That I am the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid case and being so I am
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also
competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the contents of accompanying written statement has been drafted
under my instructions and the facts stated therein are true and correct

12. to the best of my knowledge and believed to be true and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
3.That the contents of the accompanying written statement may kindly be
read as part of the present affidavit and the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :
Verified at New Delhi on this 24
th
day of April, 2018 that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and
nothing material has been canceled therefrom.
DEPONENT

14. IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017
IN THE MATTER OF :-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the present suit is pending before this Hon’ble Court and is now
fixed for 24.04.2018.
2.That the Defendant No. 1 is a septuagenarian of more than 72 years
of age and was unable to file its written statement within the
prescribed period as initially when the aforesaid documents were
received by the answering Defendant, he was under the impression
that they were the relating to the already pending suit against him in
the same court.

15. 3.That when the said papers were shown to his lawyer he was
informed that a separate suit was filed against him by his sisters
which needed reply upon which he confronted his sisters i.e. the
Plaintiffs herein who initially refused of having filed any case against
him when he met them and later started claiming their right in the
suit property.
4.That the answering Defendant tried to reason with them being his real
sisters as he did not want to litigate against them which took time as
initially the Plaintiffs informed that they shall withdraw the suit and later
when matter was not settled he is constrained to file the accompanying
written statement.
5.That the non filing of the written statement within prescribed time
was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the above said
reason.
PRAYER

16. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is most humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
condone the delay in filing the written statement in the present case and
allow this application of the Defendant in the interest of justice for the
reasons mentioned above.
DEFENDANT NO. 1
Through
(RAJ VARDHAN / RASHMI RAJ VARDHAN)
Advocates
D – 9, Ground Floor,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014
Ph. No. ([phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
New Delhi
24.04.2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PARVEEN, LD. ADJ,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. CS DJ/1033/2017

17. IN THE MATTER OF :-
INDRAWATI & ANR. … PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ & ANR. … DEFENDANT
S
AFFIDAVIT
I, Tilak Raj S/o Late Khajan Singh aged about 72 years R/o 226, Village
Asauda Sewan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District – Rohtak, Haryana, presently in
New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1.That I am the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid case and being so I am
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also
competent to swear the present affidavit.
2.That the contents of accompanying application has been drafted under
my instructions and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and believed to be true and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

18. 3.That the contents of the accompanying application may kindly be read
as part of the present affidavit and the same are not being repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :
Verified at New Delhi on this 24
th
day of April, 2018 that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and
nothing material has been canceled therefrom.
DEPONENT