IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION KANPUR NAGAR
Suit. No…………………………. of 2019
Hemant Pat Singhania …PLAINTIFF
Versus
Dwarkadish Temple Trust and Ors. …DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER
XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC
Sir,
For the facts and reasons disclosed in the affidavit which forms part of
this application, it is respectfully prayed that the Plaintiff application for
Permanent and Injunction may kindly be allowed and the Decree of
Permanent Injunction may kindly be passed in favour of Plaintiff and
against Defendants suitably restraining the Defendants their
agents/attorneys/representative etc., from further constructing on the
said property and/or selling, conveying or alienating aforesaid properties
in any made of manner.
DATED: 06-04-2019
ADVOCATES FOR THE PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION KANPUR NAGAR
Suit. No…………………………. of 2019
Hemant Pat Singhania …PLAINTIFF
Versus
Dwarkadish Temple Trust and Ors. …DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF HEMANT PAT SINGHANIA, adult son of Late Sh.
Radha Kishan Singhania Resident of 84/43 Radha Kunj, Kalpi Road
Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-208012 …..DEPONENT
I, Hemant Pat Singhania, above named deponent do hereby takes oath
and state as under:
1. That the deponent is the only son and heir/successor of his father
late Radha Kishan Singhania and is well conversant with the facts
of the case deposed to herein below.
2. That the deponent is a Peace loving, God fearing and law-abiding
Citizen who hails from the renowned and respectable family of this
metropolis.
3. That the deponent’s father was Late. Shri Radha Kishan Singhania
who had breathed his last on 20.09.1973. at Kanpur.
4. That the deponent’s father, amongst other, owned and possessed
certain self-earned immovable properties in his own name being the
premises no 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 situated at Tilak Nagar, Kanpur
Nagar (Uttar Pradesh).
5. That the deponent is holding and owning aforesaid properties of his
father following the inheritance which took place in his favor upon
the death of his father Shri Radha Kishan Singhania in an
unbroken continuity without any interference by anybody.
6. That after the death of his father deponent applied for the mutation
in relevant records of Kanpur Development Authority i.e. Successor
of Cawnpore Improvement Trust, but unfortunately could not
succeed since he was not able to grease palms of the Authority.
7. That deponent’s father during his lifetime and out of his generosity,
had orally permitted his immovable properties aforesaid to be used
by the Defendant No.1 for a limited purpose to rent out the
bungalows situated on the premises, provided that the rent
accruing from the rented bungalows would be used for the
purposes of managing the temple and for carrying out other
religious activities related to temple.
8. That, as such Defendant No.1 was and, is the mere custodian of
said properties without having any power or authority of
transferring and/or alienating them in any manner whatsoever.
9. That the Defendant No.1 was created mainly to manage the
Dwarkadish Temple situate at Kamla Tower Dwarkadish Road
Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) properly and smoothly.
10. That, in the passage of time, the Defendant No.1 without any
right or authority and, with an ulterior motive, surreptitiously
moved and got its name muted in revenue records regards
aforesaid properties of the deponent, previously owned by his late
father.
11. That mere mutation, if any, procured by Defendant No.1 in its
favor, in the absence of a foundation of title over the property and,
on the basis of frauds and misrepresentation, in respect of
plaintiff's property bearing the premises no. 7/97, Tilak Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar (U.P), has no presumptive value on the title of the
property.
12. That if the deponent’s father Late Radha Kishan Singhania
intention was to transfer the said property to the Dwarkadhish
Temple or the trust managing it, he would have applied to the
respective authorities for transfer of the same to the temple and/or
trust, which never happened.
13. That the Defendant No.1, however in an illusionary manner
started treating aforesaid properties as its own merely on the
strength of procured and unlawful mutation aforesaid. Such has
been their disregard that the Defendant No.1 has even gone to the
extent of selling and transferring one of the properties aforesaid
bearing the premises no.7/97, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (U.P) in
favor of defendant no 2 vide the registered sale deed dated
27.12.2001 duly executed by Defendant No.1 through its Managing
Trustees Dr. Gaur Hari Singhania in favour of defendant no 2
registered as Bahi No………….Volume No…….at pages…..to…….at
Serial No……. in the office of Sub-registrar Zone……. Kanpur
Nagar, on……….
14. That for proper and complete appreciation of the present
application, the factual relevant background of the controversy is
as below:
1. That in the year 1927, the father of the deponent Late
Sh. Radha Kishan Singhania purchased and acquired a
piece of land admeasuring of 3 Acres comprising of
certain Plot Nos. 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 (old Plot Nos.
14,15 and 15-A), situated at Khalasi Lines, Cawnpore
(Kanpur) Uttar Pradesh, from the Cawnpore Improvement
trust vide sale deed dated 05.12.1927.
2. That another piece of land admeasuring the area of about
3.48 Acre in the vicinity of above said the land was
purchased by late Lala Kamla Pat Singhania bearing the
Plot No 11, 11A 12 and 13 situated at the then Khalasi
Line vide the registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1927. Said
late Lala Kamla Pat Singhania is the elder brother of
deponent’s father;
3. That after the death of deponent's father and his elder
brother aforesaid the immovable properties mentioned
above were held and owned by respective legal heirs and
successors of deponent’s father and of his elder brother
in the normal manner;
4. That the elder brother of deponent’s father had been the
Manager of Dwarkadish Temple aforesaid and he
purchased said Plot Nos. 11,11A 12 and 13 in his
capacity as Manager of Temple. On the other hand
deponent’s father purchased his said Plot Nos.14,15 and
15A [now, the premises, bearing the no. 7/97, 7/96 and
7/95 situate at Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar
Pradesh] and developed them in his individual capacity
and, in furtherance thereto deponent’s father permitted
his said personal property bearing no. 7/97, 7/96 and
7/95 to be used and utilized by temple which the
Defendant No.1 not claims that it manages, for limited
purpose of renting out the bungalows situated at the
property and using the accruing rent for the purposes of
carrying out religious affairs of the temple only, without
intending to give any power or authority of transferring or
selling it in any manner;
5. That the Deponent after the death of his father being his
only son and the legal heir/successor, stepping into his
shoes, acquired an entire right, title, and interests of
above-mentioned property in his favor by way of
inheritance.
6. That as such except what has been stated in preceding
paragraphs, the deponent is holding and owning
aforesaid properties in his own vested rights and
entitlement without any interference by anybody.
7. That on 19.06.2017 the Plaintiff’s son wrote a letter to
Sh. Yadupati Singhania stating that it was brought to his
attention that the property bearing number 14, 15, 15 A
(New properties number 7/97, 7/96, 7/95) was being
sold which was given to the Defendant No.1 only for the
purposes of managing the temple and for carrying out
other religious activities related to temple.
8. Thereafter on 05.07.2017 it was informed to the son of
Plaintiff that the properties bearing number 14, 15 and
15A purchased by the Late Sh, Radha Kishan Singhania
stands mutated in the of the Defendant No.1 in the
records of Kanpur development authority and Kanpur
Nagar Nigam.
9. That again in month of October 2017 Plaintiff came to
know about wrongdoings and misdeeds of Defendant
No.1 when the Defendant No.1 was planning to sell
plaintiff's aforesaid property which is in the rightful
ownership of the Plaintiff.
10. That on 16.10.2017, 16.11.2017 deponent made
complaints before the learned Commissioner regarding
wrongful mutation somehow obtained by Defendant No.1.
Regretfully no action was taken upon the deponent's
complaint.
11. That being aggrieved by the inaction of the City
Commissioner with regard to complete lack of procedure
followed in mutation records of the concerned property
that on 07.02.2018 the deponent was opted to file a Writ
Petition No (C) No-5851 of 2018 title as "Hemantpant
Singhania Vs. State of U.P. & Ors” before the Hon’ble
High Court of ALLAHABAD.
12. That the said Writ Petition came up for hearing before
the Hon’ble Court on 19.02.2018. However, the same was
dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that
the aggrieved party may have an appropriate remedy in
civil law.
13. That after the dismissal of the above-mentioned Writ
Petition deponent had filed two (2) Right to Information
(RTI) Applications dated 14.05.2018 before the Kanpur
Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development Authority
enquiring as to the mutation records of the properties
bearing numbers 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 (old Plot Nos.14,
15 and 15-A) of Khalasi Lines, Kanpur Nagar.
14. That the Kanpur Nagar Nigam replied to the RTI
Application on 18.08.2018 stating that as of the
computer records in the year 2008 plots No. 7/95 and
7/96 are in the name the Defendant Trust and plot No.
7/97 is in the name of the Defendant Trust, Hema
Agrawal, and Jyothi Agrawal.
15. That upon further search and inquiries it was revealed
to deponent that Defendant No.1, vide the registered sale
deed dated 27.12.2001 aforesaid, had sold deponent's
property bearing the premises no 7/97, Tilak Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar (U.P) in favor of defendant no 2 illegally
and unauthorizedly.
16. That the Defendant No.1 in its aggrandizement are
looking to construct on and seek to transfer and alienate
the remaining property of the deponent.
17. That the entire act and conduct of Defendant No.1 is
wholly bad and illegal and is aimed at converting the
deponent’s property in its own use and benefit without
having any right or authority for the same.
18. That the Defendant No.1 never had or has an
entitlement of constructing on the said property without
the authorization of the deponent and/or to dispose of
the deponent's property according to its own choice. As
already submitted hereinabove, Defendant No.1 does not
have any ownership rights or domain over the property.
19. That, in all events, sale deed aforesaid made by
Defendant No.1 in favor of defendant no 2 is absolute
without any authority, illegal and the property so sold
cannot be said and/ or claimed to have been passed in
favor transferee/defendant No 2 Accordingly the said sale
deed dated 27.12.2001 is the document non est in the
eye of law.
20. That the deponent discussed the matter with
defendants and apprised them with real situation of the
matter and thereby requested not to deal further with
deponent's properties along with the property sold under
unauthorized and unlawful sale deed 27.12.2001 but
defendants did not accede to deponent's request and on
the contrary threatened that since the property had been
transferred to defendant no 2 by Defendant No.1 quite
properly under the duly registered sale deed, therefore,
they along with other properties of deponent which had
been given to Defendant No.1 is entitled to deal with the
same according to their own choice and wish and any
interference by deponent is highly improper and
unwarranted and dispute, if any, could only be settled,
according to law, through intervention of competent court
and, not by any other means.
21. That the Defendant no 1 has no right or authority to
further deal with deponent's property in any manner
whatsoever since no right had or has passed in their
favor under the said sale deed dated 27.12.2001 and
entire right, title and interest of the said property still
remains with deponent alone. Further, Defendant No.1 is
not entitled to deal with the remaining aforesaid
properties of the deponent for the purpose of selling and
transferring them.
22. That in these circumstance deponents has been left
with no option except to seek asylum under this Hon'ble
Court as the Defendants are not amenable to genuine
and lawful requests of the deponent.
23. That under the circumstances narrated herein, it is just
and equitable that the deponent’s application for
permanent injunction against the Defendant may kindly
be allowed in favour of the deponent and against the
Defendants.
Verification
