Suit For Permanent Injunction

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi

… Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Sunita @ Soni W/o Late Sh. Ajeet Singh D/o Sh. Prakash R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi 2. Prakash R/O House No……………….

… Defendants

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION THE PLAINTIFF MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER: 1.

That the plaintiff is the resident of the aforesaid address and residing with his family. That the defendant no.1 is the widow of late Sh. Ajeet Singh, and the defendant no.2 is the father of the defendant no.1, defendant is residing in the portion of House No.108, Village Dera, New Delhi. It is pertinent to mention herein that Sh. Ajeet Singh was the nephew of the plaintiff.

2.

That Late Sh. Chandagi Ram, father of the plaintiff has purchased House No. 108, Dera Village, New Delhi, admeasuring 450 Sq.yds. (hereinafter referred as suit property) from Durga in the year 1970 and constructed the same for residential purpose and then started residing with his family. It is pertinent to mentioned herein that late father of plaintiff has bequeathed the suit property in favour of his

wife Smt. Papai vide the WiLL executed in favour of Smt. Papai (mother of plaintiff) in the year 1988. Father of plaintiff was demised on 11.07.1989 and thereafter the mother of plaintiff became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property as no one in the family challenged bequeath in any manner. 3.

That the suit property of the plaintiff are more specifically described and shown in the rought sketch plan in green colour, which is bounded as under: East West North South

: : : :

Other’s Property Other’s Property Road Other’s Property

The rought site plan of the suit property is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1. 4.

That after the death of father of plaintiff, mother of the plaintiff was the absolute owner of House No. 108, Dera Village, New Delhi, admeasuring 450 Sq.yds. and she bequeath the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide the registered WiLL dated 18.05.2011, duly registered on 23.05.2011 in the office of Sub-Registrar V, New Delhi vide document no. 2436 in Addl. Book No. 3, Volume No…….., page no.86 to 89. True copy of the Will registered on 23.05.2011 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.

5.

That mother of plaintiff was demised on 01.05.2013 and since then the plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of the suit property. It is pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff has not evicted any family member from the suit property and acted for the welfare of the entire family and also allowed the defendant no.1 to reside in the suit property as shown in the green colour in the rough sketch plan.

6.

That defendant no.2 was occasionally visited the defendant no.2 when the husband of the defendant no.1 was alive but after death of the husband of the defendant no.1, defendant no.2 frequently started visiting the defendant no.1. Plaintiff has noticed that as and when the defendant no.2 visited the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 started creating troubles to the plaintiff and told the other family members that she has right in the suit property after the death of the mother of the plaintiff.

7.

That thereafter the plaintiff has informed all the family members that his mother Smt. Papai has bequeathed the entire suit property including the portion/plot wherein the defendant no.1 is residing, vide the WiLL registered on 23.05.2011.

8.

That the defendant no.1 has called the defendant no.2 who talked to the plaintiff and then the plaintiff has also informed that the entire property is bequeathed by his mother in the name of plaintiff and also assured the father of the plaintiff that the defendant shall not be evicted from the house as she is the member of the family. Then the defendant no.1 asked the plaintiff for transfer of the suit property in the name of the defendant no.1 upto the extent wherein she is residing, but the plaintiff refused to transfer the same.

9.

That on ………….. when the plaintiff returned home found some local property dealers in the suit property and on enquiry it was disclosed that they come at the suit property for visit as the defendant no.1 shown her willingness to sale the suit property then the plaintiff informed them that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property and no one has any right to sale, transfer or part with possession except the plaintiff and then he also informed that the

suit property is not for sale. Then the plaintiff also informed the defendant no.1 do not repeat any such act in future as he is the sole owner of the suit property. 10.

That on the next day the defendant no.2 visited at the house of the plaintiff along with the defendant no.1 and asked for the partition of the suit property and handing over of the due share to the defendant no.1 and also extended threats that in case her daughter’s share is not given then she shall sold her portion to the prospective purchasers of property dealers of his choice.

11.

That on……….. the plaintiff found that the local property dealers frequently visited the suit property and inspected the suit property and also inquiring from the neighbors regarding the status of the suit property for purchase then the plaintiff also informed that he is the sole owner of the suit property and the same is not for sale. It is pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff is facing great problem and harassment as such everyday one or two property dealers are visiting at the suit property and making enquiry for purchase of the suit property.

12.

That from the conduct of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 it seems that they are adamant to sale the suit property without the consent of the plaintiff and trying to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and wrongful gain for themselves by selling the suit property. The defendant no.2 is supporting the defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 at the instigation of the defendant no.2 is trying to dispose of the suit property due the greed.

13.

That the defendants are acting in collusion with each other and making every possible effort to sale the suit property, which belongs

to the plaintiff. No one has any right, title and interest in the suit property except the plaintiff. That the defendants knowingly and intentionally trying to dispose of the suit property of the plaintiff and trying to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and wrongful gain to themselves from their conduct, therefore, they are required to be restrained from doing so. 14.

That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on the day when the defendants no.1 in collusion with the defendant no.2 made efforts to sale the suit property of the plaintiff and furthermore the cause of action arose on each and every day when the property dealers visited at the suit property and since then the cause of action is continuous and subsisting till date.

15.

That the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court therefore, this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and adjudicate the same.

16.

That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of permanent injunction is fixed at Rs.130/- and a court fee of Rs.13 is payable which is affixed on the plaint. It is also submitted herein that in case the court fee is found deficient then the plaintiff shall pay the same as and when this Hon’ble court directed to pay the same. P R A Y E R:

Under the circumstances, it is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

a)

Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, workmen, employees or any other person(s) claiming through or under them or acting for and/or on their behalf from selling and parting with possession of the suit property i.e. House No. 108, Dera Village, New Delhi as shown green in the rough site plan.

b)

Allow a cost of the proceeding in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

c)

Pass such other or further order(s), which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

PLAINTIFF THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA. (ADVOCATES) LAWYER’S CH.NO.514, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110017. NEW DELHI DATE: VERIFICAATION Verified at Delhi on this day of

July, 2014 that the contents of

para no.1 to para…. Of the suit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and there is no misrepresentation in it and those of para…..to para……are true and correct on the basis of legal advice received by me as the same are read over to me in vernacular i.e. Hindi and last para is prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court.

PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh

… Plaintiff VERSUS

Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr.

… Defendants AFFDAVIT

I, Bishan Singh S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi, aged about…..Years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That the deponent is the plaintiff in the aforesaid case and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of present case and as such competent of swear the present affidavit. 2. That the accompanying suit for permanent injunction injunction along with consequential relief is drafted by my counsel upon & under my instructions which are read over to me in vernacular language i.e. Hindi and contents thereof are true and correct to best of my knowledge & belief.

Deponent Verification: Verified at New Delhi On this

day of July, 2014 that the

contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI I.A.No………….of 2014 in CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh

… Plaintiff VERSUS

Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr.

… Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER-XXXIX, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH S-151 CPC FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY/ TEMPORARY INJUNCTION/STATUS QUO.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1.

That the present application is being filed by the plaintiff under order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 for Ad-Interim ex-parte temporary injunction/ stay/ status quo with the accompanying suit and the contents of the suit may kindly be treated as part and partial to this application also, which are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.

2.

That the local property dealer is frequently visiting the suit property for inspection of the same just to purchase the same from the defendant no.1. That the defendants in collusion with each other are trying to sale the suit property which is not belongs to them therefore, the defendants are required to be restrained from sale of the suit property of the plaintiff.

3.

That balance of convenience is lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and there is every possibility of the plaintiff to succeed in the present suit.

4.

That the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and damages which cannot be compensated in terms of money in case the Ad-Interim

Ex-Parte Injunction/Stay/Status Quo is not granted to the plaintiff/applicant. PRAYER Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court, may graciously be pleased to : a)

Pass Ad-interim ex-parte temporary stay/ injunction/status quo

order

restraining

the

defendants

their

agents,

employees, attorneys & representatives from selling and parting with possession of the suit property i.e. House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi, during the pendency of the present suit and/or; b)

Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

PLAINTIFF THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA. (ADVOCATES) LAWYER’S CH.NO.514, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110017. NEW DELHI DATE:

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI I.A.No………….of 2014 in CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh

… Plaintiff VERSUS

Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr.

… Defendants

AFFDAVIT I, Bishan Singh S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi, aged about…..Years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1.

That the deponent is the plaintiff and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of present case and as such competent of swear the present affidavit.

2.

That the accompanying application under Order 39, Rule-1 & 2 CPC for ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction is drafted by my counsel upon & under my instructions which are read over to me in vernacular language and contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge & belief.

Deponent Verification: Verified at New Delhi On this

day of July, 2014 that the

contents of above affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh

… Plaintiff VERSUS

Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr.

… Defendants LIST OF RELIANCE

1.

Original of documents, photocopies which have already been placed on record.

2.

Original of the letters, receipts, Notices, photocopies which have already been placed on record.

3.

Any other documents with the permission of this Hon’ble as may be found during the pendency of present suit.

PLAINTIFF THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA. (ADVOCATES) LAWYER’S CH.NO.514, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110017. NEW DELHI DATE:

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh

… Plaintiff VERSUS

Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr.

… Defendants

INDEX

Sr.No.

Particulars

C.fee .Page.No.

1.

Memo of parties

2.

Suit for Permanent Injunction with affidavit.

3.

Application u/o-39, rule 1& 2 read with s151 CPC, for Ad-Interim Ex-party temporary injunction/Stay/ status quo with affidavit.

4.

List of reliance

5.

List of documents alongwith documents.

6.

Vakalatnama

7.

Duplicate copy of suit.

PLAINTIFF THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA. (ADVOCATES) LAWYER’S CH.NO.514, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110017. NEW DELHI DATE:

IN THE COURT OF Ld. CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: SMT.MANJU DEVI

… PLAINTIFF VERSUS

SH. AMIT KUMAR & ORS.

… DEFENDANTS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF S.NO. DETAILS

PAGES

1. Annexure P-1. The rought site plan of the suit property. 2. Annexure P-2. Will executed by the father of the plaintiff. 3. Annexure P-3. True copy of registered Will dated 23.05.2011 executed in favour of plaintiff.

ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS WITH PERMISSION OF THIS HON”BLE COURT

THE

PLAINTIFF THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA. (ADVOCATES) LAWYER’S CH.NO.514, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110017. NEW DELHI DATE:

IN THE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI CIVIL SUIT No……………of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Bishan Singh

… Plaintiff VERSUS

Smt.Sunita @Soni & Anr.

… Defendants MEMO OF PARTIES

Sh. Bishan Singh S/O Late Sh. Chandagi Ram R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi

… Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Sunita @ Soni W/o Late Sh. Ajeet Singh D/o Sh. Prakash R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi 2. Prakash R/O House No.108, Dera Village, New Delhi

… Defendants

(All the summons, notices orders etc. in connection with the above suit be sent to me at the address given above. In case of any change in address the same shall be communicated you with full particulars and details.)

PLAINTIFF THROUGH VIKRAM SINGH & VINIT GUPTA. (ADVOCATES) LAWYER’S CH.NO.514, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX NEW DELHI – 110017. NEW DELHI DATE: