In The Court Of Ms Sonam Singh, Ld. Civil Judge-05 Central Distt., Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

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. 1. 01.

PARTICULARS

PAGES

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

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.

PAGES

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 SubRegistrar 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 coowner 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 abinitio 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