IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD.
CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO.96547 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants
INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. 01. Written statement on behalf of the defendants
No.5(a) and 5(b) i.e. Mr Harish Moolchandani
and Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani respectively
both sons of late Mr Kisan Chand Moolchandani
(originally impleaded as defendant NO.5 in the
suit) with supporting affidavits.
Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani
Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
Through
SHEKHAR GUPTA &
MANISH SHARMA
Advocates
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Chamber: 305, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email :
[email protected] Place: New Delhi.
Dated:
A-Harish Moolchandani-WS-VP
IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO.96547 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants
INDEX
(List of documents on behalf of defendants No.5(a) and 5(b) i.e. Mr
Harish Moolchandani and Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
respectively)
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. True copy of assessment order dated 15.2.1971
passed by Income Tax Officer, New Delhi in the
name of Mr Kishan Chand i.e. father of the
defendant.
2. True copy of receipts dated 29.4.1971 and
15.7.1972 issued by LIC of India in the name of
father of the defendants.
3. True copy of orders dated 29.12.1973 and
8.8.1975 passed by the Appellate Asstt.
Commissioner of Income Tax issued in the
name of Mr Kishan Chand of M/s V Kishan
Chand Ganga Ram.
4. True copy of sale deed dated 11.11.2003 in
favour of Mr Radha Kishan Manuja of one shop
on ground floor bearing private No.4867-A
carpet area 180 sq ft appx. Forming part of
property municipal Nos.4866 to 4868, Cloth
Market, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi.
5. True copy of sale deed dated 23.3.2006
executed by Mr Radha Kishan Manuja in favour
of defendants No.5-A and 5-B of one shop on
ground floor bearing private No.4867-A carpet
area 180 sq ft appx. Forming part of property
municipal Nos.4866 to 4868, Cloth Market,
Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi
Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani
Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
Through
SHEKHAR GUPTA &
MANISH SHARMA
Advocates
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Chamber: 305, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email :
[email protected]Place: New Delhi.
Dated:
A-Harish Moolchandani-WS-VP
IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO.96547 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants
Written statement on behalf of the defendants No.5(a) and 5(b) i.e.
Mr Harish Moolchandani and Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
respectively both sons of late Mr Kisan Chand Moolchandani
(originally impleaded as defendant NO.5 in the suit)
Most respectfully showeth :-
Preliminary submissions :-
1. It is stated that the present written statement is being filed by the
defendants No.5 (a) and 5(b) i.e. Mr Harish Moolchandani and
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani respectively. It is stated that
originally the plaintiff has impleaded Mr Kishan Chand
Moolchandani as defendant NO.5 who expired on 1.5.2005 left
behind following legal heirs :
(i) Mrs. Mohini Devi (wife) (expired on 11.4.2013)
(ii) Mrs. Divya Kukreja (married daughter)
(iii) Mr Harish Moolchandani (married son)
(iv) Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani (married son)
It is stated that post death of late Mr Kishan Chand
Moolchandani, his wife Mrs Mohini Devi and daughter Ms Divya
Kukreja signed and executed a registered relinquishment deed
dated 23.6.2006 in favour of the defendants NO.5 (a) and 5(b)
thereby relinquishing their rights in the suit property i.e. shop
NO.4867-B, admeasuring 21.08 sq yds (appx forming part of
property bearing Municipal Nos.4866 to 4868 at Cloth Market,
Ganesh Bazar, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi 110006.
In view of the above it is only the defendants No.5 (a) and 5(b)
who are the absolute owner in possession of the suit property
and filing the present written statement in opposition to the suit.
The true copy of the death certificate of late Mr Kishan Chand
Moolchandani and Mrs. Mohini Devi and relinquishment deed
dated 23.3.2006 have also been filed with reply to the application
filed by the plaintiff under order 22 rule 4 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
Preliminary objections :-
1. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by
limitation as the plaintiff has sought a decree of declaration with
respect to the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 executed with respect to
the suit property in favour of original defendants No.5 i.e. Late Mr
Kishan Chand Moolchandani. It is stated that the present suit
has been filed after a period of 15 long years by the plaintiff from
the date of registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998. It is stated that
the plaintiff from day one was very well aware of the sale deed
dated 7.4.1998 and ownership of the father of the defendants
No.5(a) and 5(b) in the suit property. It is stated that the father of
the defendant and now the defendants No.5(a) and (b) have
been in settled occupant and possession of the suit property for
about more than 50 years earlier as tenant and later since
7.4.1998 as owner of the suit property. It is a matter of record
and admitted position that the plaintiff has been doing its
business activities from the adjacent shop of suit property in
shop in property No.4867. It is stated that the plaintiff was aware
of the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 from day one of its execution.
However now in the year 2013 has field the present suit in the
most illegal and abusing manner. It is also a matter of record
that the plaintiff has submitted a complaint dated 9.4.1998 to the
ACP / SHO of PS Lahori Gate, Delhi alleging that the property
No.4868, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi was illegally sold by its
owner. It is stated that the said complaint was filed by the plaintiff
just after 2 days of execution of sale deed dated 7.4.1998 which
clearly show and prove that the plaintiff was well aware of the
sale deed dated 7.4.1998 with respect to the suit property since
beginning. The present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and
only on this ground is liable to be dismissed.
2. It is stated that the present suit is barred under Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is stated that it is admitted position
that it is the answering defendants who are in occupation of the
suit property. However despite of the same the plaintiff has not
sought any relief of possession of the suit property. It is stated
that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has
only sought a relief of declaration and omitted to seek the further
relief of possession which plaintiff is able to seek.
3. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 as the plaintiff has not sought any declaration as to his
legal character or right in the suit property which is a condition
precedent in a suit for declaration. It is stated that the title of the
plaintiff in the suit property is not established and under absolute
cloud. However the plaintiff has not sought any relief of
declaration with respect to his title in the suit property and in
absence thereof the present suit is not maintainable and liable to
be dismissed.
4. The present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the plaintiff has
claimed in the plaint that the plaintiff has a share in the suit
property along with defendants NO.1 to 4. However the plaintiff
has not sought any relief of partition and therefore the suit is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. That it is stated that the present suit is barred under Section 34
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as e plaintiff has not sought any
relief with respect to the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by late
Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain in favour of defendants NO.1 to 4.
6. That it is stated that he present suit is liable to be dismissed as
the plaintiff ahs no locus to file the present suit. It is stated so
because the plaintiff has no right to challenge the validity and
genuineness of the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by Mr
Sukhbir Chand Jain in favour of the defendant No.1 to 4. It is
stated that late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain i.e. mother of the Mr
Sukhbir Chand Jain was expired on 14.1.2012 i.e. much after the
death of Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain on 5.12.1992 and also after the
execution of registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 in favour of
defendant NO.5. It is matter of record and admitted position that
Mrs Shanti Devi Jain never challenged the Will dated 14.11.1992
executed by Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain and also not challenged the
registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 during her lifetime. It is
stated that the plaintiff is not a legal heir of late Mr Sukhbir
Chand Jain and he has no locus to challenge the genuineness
and validity of the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by Mr Sukhbir
Chand Jain during his lifetime. On this ground alone the present
suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff is estopped to file the
present suit by raising any challenge to the validity of the Will
dated 14.11.1992 executed by Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain and
registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 as Mrs Shanti Devi Jain
herself never challenged the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by
Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain and registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998
during her lifetime.
7. That it is stated that the present suit is without any cause of
action and liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has claimed his
right in the suit property from the alleged Will dated 21.9.1993 of
late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain. First of all the said Will has not been
proved in any court of law and secondly in the entire Will there
was no mention of the suit property. It is stated that a bare
reading of the alleged Will dated 21.9.1993 alleged to have been
executed by late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain would clearly show that
she was aware at the time of execution of her Will that he has no
interest in the suit property and for this reason alone she has not
mentioned about the suit property in the said alleged Will. It is
stated that plaintiff is claiming his rights in the suit property on
the basis of Will dated 21.9.1993 however there is no mention of
the suit property in the said Will and for this reason alone the suit
is bad and without any cause of action and liable to be
dismissed. The above objection is without prejudice to the
contention of the answering defendants that the alleged Will
dated 21.9.1993 of Mrs Shanti Devi Jain is not valid and genuine
and same is forged and fabricated.
8. That it is stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any
cause of action and liable to be dismissed. It is stated that even
from the bare reading of the plaint it shall reveal that the case set
up by the plaintiff is that, that after the partition took place in the
year 1974 the suit property went to the share of late Mr Sukhbir
Chand Jain i.e. to the exclusion of plaintiff. Further after the
death of Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain the said property came to the
ownership of defendants no.1 to 4 in terms of the Will dated
14.11.1992 executed by Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain during his
lifetime in favour of defendants No.1 to 4. For this ground alone
the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. That it is stated that the answering defendants (through their
deceased father) are the bonafide purchaser of the suit property
against the full consideration paid and without any notice. It is
stated that the answering defendant has purchased the suit
property in good faith and without any notice of any alleged right
of the plaintiff in the suit property and also have paid the full
consideration to its vendors and have been in possession of the
suit property as owners since 7.4.1998 as owners. Otherwise
the answering defendants (through their father) have been in
settled possession of the suit property for about more than 50
years as mentioned herein above.
10. That it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable for the
relief of permanent injunction as the plaintiff has no personal
interest in the suit property and the suit is barred under Section
41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
11. That it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable for the
relief of permanent injunction as the plaintiff ahs not claimed the
consequential relief of partition and possession and therefore the
suit is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963.
Reply on merits :-
1. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint as stated are wrong and
incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that late Mrs Shanti
Devi Jain executed a regd. Will dated 21.9.1993 during her
lifetime and by virtue of the said Will the plaintiff is entitled to all
the benefits of late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain. It is stated that firstly
the said Will dated 21.9.1993 is not proved in any court of law
and secondly and without prejudice to the same there is no
mention of the suit property in the alleged Will dated 21.9.1993.
The contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as
part and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated
herewith for the sake of brevity.
2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint as stated are denied for
want of knowledge as the answering defendants are alien to the
partition mentioned in the corresponding para. The plaintiff is put
to strict proof thereof. However it is admitted position that Mr
Sukhbir Chand Jain was the owner of the suit property.
3. That the contents of para 3 of the plaint as stated are matter of
record and do not call for any reply.
4-5. That the contents of paras 4 and 5 of the plaint as stated are
wrong and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that Mr
Sukhbir Chand Jain died intestate on 5.12.1992 leaving behind
the defendants No.1 to 4 and Mrs Shanti Devi Jain has his legal
heir. It is stated that Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain executed a Will
dated 14.11.1992 during his lifetime in favour of defendants No.1
to 4 on which basis the said defendants NO.1 to 4 became
owner of the suit property and later sold the same to the father of
the answering defendants vide regd. sale deed dated 7.4.1998.
The filing of the succession case NO.782/2004 titled “Mohini
Devi Jain V/s Stat & Others” and contents thereof are denied for
want of knowledge. It is further stated that even if it is assumed
though denied that it was mentioned in the said succession
petition that Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain had made no Will during his
lifetime, same shall not make the factual position alter or change
to the effect that late Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain executed a Will
dated 14.11.1992 during his lifetime. It is stated that the estate of
late Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain including the suit property devolved
upon defendants no.1 to 4 after his death in terms of his Will
dated 14.11.1992. Rest of the contents are denied same being
wrong and incorrect. The contents of the preliminary objections
may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present para and
same are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.
6. That the contents of para 6 of the plaint as stated are correct and
matter of record and do not call for any reply.
7. That the contents of para 7 of the plaint as stated are correct to
the extent that the defendants No.1 to 4 had mentioned in the
sale deed dated 7.4.1998 that Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain had
executed a Will dated 14.11.1992 in their favour. It is stated that
the defendants no.1 to 4 rightly and validly sold the suit property
to the defendant NO.5. It is stated that the defendants NO.1 to 4
have all the rights to sell the suit property to the defendant no.5.
The contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as
part and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated
herewith for the sake of brevity.
8. That the contents of para 8 of the plaint as stated are wrong and
incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants NO.1
to 4 in connivance with each other had forged the Will dated
14.11.1992 that the sole motive to deprive Mrs Shanti Devi Jain
from her settled share in the property and the defendants have
not mentioned anything about the Will dated 14.11.1992 in the
petition field before Mr Sanjiv Kumar Jain, administrative Civil
Judge, Delhi. It is stated that the falsity of the corresponding
para of the plaint becomes clear from the fact that Mrs Shanti
Devi Jain expired on 14.1.2012 while the sale deed was
executed by the defendants NO.1 to 4 as back as on 7.4.1998
and for a period of long 14 years Mrs Shanti Devi Jain never
raised any dispute with respect to the said sale deed dated
7.4.1998. It is stated that the suit property is known as shop
NO.4867-B, admeasuring about 21.08 sq yds forming part of
property No.4866 to 4868 at Cloth Market, Ganesh Bazar,
Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi 110006. It is further
stated that the answering defendants also purchased the
adjacent shop to the suit property i.e. shop No.4867-A forming
part of property No.4866 at Cloth Market, Ganesh Bazar, Church
Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi 110006 from its owner Mr Radha
Kishan Manuja vide regd. sale deed dated 23.03.2006. It is
stated that after purchasing the adjacent shop i.e. No.4867-A the
answering defendants had removed the intervening wall of shop
NO.4867-A – 4968-B and made on bigger shop. It is stated that
the plaintiff has filed the present suit with ulterior motives and
malafide intentions and same is liable to be dismissed. The
contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part
and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated
herewith for the sake of brevity.
9. That the contents of para 9 of the plaint as stated are wrong and
incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the plaintiff is the
sole beneficiary of Mrs Shanti Devi Jain on the basis of alleged
Will dated 21.9.1993. It is stated that the Will dated 21.9.1993
setup by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated and even otherwise
there is no mention of the suit property in the alleged Will dated
21.9.1993 alleged to have been executed by Mrs Shanti Devi
Jain. The contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be
read as part and parcel of the present para and same are not
repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.
10. That the contents of para 10 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants
NO.1 to 4 have executed the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 on a very
low price then the market value / circle rate of the property, in
favour of the defendants NO.5 and the sale deed is undervalued
document, hence the same is liable to be cancelled. It is stated
that the sale deed was executed at the prevailing market rates
and no such objection was raised by the concerned Sub-
Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed who is the
concerned authority to raise such objection if any. The contents
of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and
parcel of the present para and same are not repeated herewith
for the sake of brevity.
11. That the contents of para 11 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants
No.1 to 4 have sold the suit property to the defendant no.5 by
misrepresentation themselves to be the absolute owners of the
suit property which is illegal in law. The contents of the
preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel of
the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the
sake of brevity.
12. That the contents of para 12 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the sale
deed dated 7.4.1998 is liable to be cancelled as one of the co-
owner of the suit property under sale has neither received the
sale consideration nor has given her consent to the said sale
deed and hence sale deed is void ab-initio. It is stated that Mrs
Shanti Devi Jain have raised any objection to the sale
transaction done on 7.4.1998 during her lifetime since the
execution of the sale deed on 7.4.1998 till her death on
14.1.2012 i.e. for a period of long 14 years. It is stated that the
time to file any suit in challenge to the sale deed dated 7.4.1998
had expired even during the lifetime of Mrs Shanti Devi Jain and
therefore now the plaintiff has no right and locus to challenge the
same. It is stated that the plaintiff and Mrs Shanti Devi Jain were
both very well aware of the execution of the sale deed dated
7.4.1998 since beginning and never challenged the same except
for the first time in 2013 the plaintiff has filed the present suit
which is false and frivolous. The contents of the preliminary
objections may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present
para and same are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.
13. That the contents of para 13 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the
defendants no.1 to 4 with active connivance of each other and
also with defendant no.5 and with sole intention to deceive and
cheat and to give wrongful loss to the plaintiff, has dishonestly
and fraudulently executed the sale deed on the basis of forged
and fabricated Will dated 14.11.1992. It is stated that there is no
question of cheating the plaintiff by defendants no.1 to 4 and / or
defendant No.5 as the sale deed was executed on 7.4.1998
when Mrs Shanti Devi Jain was alive and even if it is assumed,
though denied that Mrs Shanti Devi Jain has any right in the suit
property the plaintiff did not come into the picture at all. The
contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part
and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated
herewith for the sake of brevity.
14. That the contents of para 14 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants
with connivance of each other and fraudulently and dishonestly
executed the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 which has no value in the
eyes of law It is stated that the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 is
absolutely valid, legal and has been executed in the most correct
and legal manner. The contents of the preliminary objections
may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present para and
same are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.
15. That the contents of para 15 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that plaintiff came
to know about the execution of the sale deed dated 7.4.1998
when defendants no.1 to 4 moved an application / reply in a
partition suit pending before Delhi High Court, New Delhi that
they have not sold any property of Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain. It is
denied that the plaintiff was asked by his counsel appearing
before Delhi High Court, New Delhi to search about the status of
the properties of late Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain in December, 2012
and then the plaintiff came to know that defendants No.1 to 4
have sold two shops on the ground floor, entire first floor and
second floor with roof of the property bearing no.4866-68, Cloth
Market, Delhi 110006 to two different persons, who are found to
be occupying their respective portions and on inquiry, this fact
came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the first week of
January, 2013 from the respective occupants that they have
purchased from the defendants no.1 to 4 vide registered sale
deed and then the plaintiff made a search before Registrar office
and then applied for certified copies of the sale deed on
10.1.2013 which were received on 11.1.2013 and 15.1.2013. It
is stated that the contents of the corresponding para are
absolutely wrong and incorrect and therefore denied. It is stated
that though the defendants are not aware about the alleged
partition suit mentioned in the corresponding para of the plaint
and even otherwise the plaintiff has chosen not to place on
record any document pertaining to the alleged partition suit.
Secondly the plaintiff never inquired from the answering
defendant about their status as alleged in the corresponding
para. Further it is stated that the plaintiff is very much aware
about the ownership and possession of the answering defendant
in the suit property since beginning i.e. from the date of
registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 as the plaintiff is running his
shop from the same premises and adjacent shop to the suit
property. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that
the plaintiff had submitted a complaint dated 9.4.1998 to the
ACP / SHO of PS Lahori Gate, Delhi alleging that the property
No.4868, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi was illegally sold by its
owner. It is stated that the said complaint was filed by the plaintiff
just after 2 days of execution of sale deed dated 7.4.1998 which
clearly show and prove that the plaintiff was well aware of the
sale deed dated 7.4.1998 with respect to the suit property since
beginning. It is stated that the plaintiff has stated falsehood on
oath and liable to be prosecuted for the offence of perjury and
the story has been concocted by the plaintiff to save the time of
limitation which has already been expired long back.
16. That the contents of para 16 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the plaintiff
got issued legal notice to the defendants on 28.1.2013 by regd.
post and speed post. It is stated that no legal notice whatsoever
has been served on answering defendants or their father at any
point of time. The contents of the legal notice are wrong and
incorrect and therefore denied so as the service of legal notice
on the answering defendants. It is also relevant to point out that
the plaintiff claimed the possession of the suit property by the
alleged notice dated 28.1.2013. However no relief of possession
has been claimed in the present suit and for this reason alone
the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 as mentioned herein above. The
contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part
and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated
herewith for the sake of brevity.
17. That the contents of para 17 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the sale
deed dated 7.4.1998 is liable to be declared as null and void ab-
initio qua the suit property as the defendants no.1 to 4 have
executed the sale deed on the basis of forged and fabricated Will
dated 14.11.1992 and without having ownership rights, title or
interest thereon. It is stated that the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 is
absolutely legal and valid and has been rightly executed by the
defendants NO.1 to 4 to the defendant NO.5. The contents of
the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel
of the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the
sake of brevity.
18. That the contents of para 18 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the
defendant no.5 on the basis of alleged sale deed is trying to
disposes of the suit property further and the defendant no.5 has
no right, title and interest for the suit property It is denied that
plaintiff has requested the defendant NO.5 not to transfer / sell
the suit property on the basis of void documents, but he is not
ready to clear the lawful demands of the plaintiff and the plaintiff
has no other option but to seek the assistance of this Hon'ble
Court and hence this suit. The felicity of the entire claim of the
plaintiff is proved by the plaintiff himself by the false averments
made in the corresponding para. It is stated that the plaintiff has
alleged that he had requested the defendant NO.5 to not to
transfer the suit property and the defendant no.5 was not ready
to clear the lawful demands of the plaintiff It is stated that it is
admitted position that the defendant no.5 has expired long back
on 1.5.2005 and therefore there is no question of meeting the
plaintiff to the defendant NO.5 and requesting the defendant
No.5 to not to sell the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff has
no legs to stand upon and the entire suit is based on false
averments and liable to be dismissed. The contents of the
preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel of
the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the
sake of brevity.
19. That the contents of para 19 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is stated that the present
suit file db the plaintiff is without any cause of action and plaintiff
has no right and locus to file the present suit. The contents of
the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel
of the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the
sake of brevity.
20. That the contents of para 20 of the plaint as stated are wrong
and incorrect and therefore denied. It is stated that the plaintiff
has not valued the suit correctly and no proper court fees has
been paid on the plaint.
21. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint do not call for any reply.
The prayer made by the plaintiff is frivolous and false and the suit filed
by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
PRAYER
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: -
(i) dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs
imposed on the plaintiff,
(ii) pass any other order / direction that this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani
Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
Through
SHEKHAR GUPTA &
MANISH SHARMA
Advocates
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Chamber: 305, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email :
[email protected]Place: New Delhi.
Dated:
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this _________ day of _________ 2017
that the contents of para 1 of the preliminary submission and paras 1 to
18 of the reply on merits are true and correct to my knowledge while
the contents of paras 1 to 10 of preliminary objections and contents of
para 19 t 21 are based on legal advice and believed to be true.
The last para is prayer to this Hon'ble Court.
Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani
Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO.96547 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr Harish Moolchandani son of late Mr Kisan Chand
Moolchandani r/o A-119, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 aged
52 years.
I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under: -
1. That I being the defendant NO.5 (a) am fully competent and
authorized to swear the present affidavit. The deponent is fully
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying written statement are true
and correct to my knowledge and belief. The same has been
drafted and prepared under my instructions.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of _______________, 2017 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
concealed there from.
DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO.96547 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani son of late Mr Kisan
Chand Moolchandani r/o A-119, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi
110034 aged 52 years.
I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under: -
1. That I being the defendant NO.5 (b) am fully competent and
authorized to swear the present affidavit. The deponent is fully
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying written statement are true
and correct to my knowledge and belief. The same has been
drafted and prepared under my instructions.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of _______________, 2017 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
concealed there from.
DEPONENT
