In the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Sonepat

---

Basanti Devi wife of Narain Singh, resident of

H.No.169-A/27, Vishal Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat.

…Plaintiff

V/S

1. Sheela wife of Nandan Singh, & daughter of Kishan

Singh resident of H.No.271, Prahladpur, D.D.A.Flats,

New Delhi.

2. Raj Kumar son of Sh.__________, resident of Jivan

Nagar, Behind Drone School, Lamba Property Wali Gali,

Sonepat.

…Defendants

---

Suit For Declaration, Possession With

Consequential Relief of Permanent

Injunction

---

Sir,

The plaintiff humbly submits as under :-

1. That the plaintiff is permanent resident of the

above said address and is real mother of Nandan Singh,

who was husband of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is the

first class legal heirs of the said Nandan Singh along

with his children.

2

2. That said Nandan Singh s/o Sh.Narain Singh used to

be owner in possession of a plot measuring 50 sq.yards,

with dimensions East to West – 30 feet, North to South

15 feet, situated in the area of Sanicharan Basti,

within revenue estate of Kabirpur, Sonepat, within

M.C.Limits of Sonepat, vide a Regd. Sale Deed No.3217

dated 15.09.2003. the copy of the said sale deed is

attached with the plaint for the kind perusal of this

Hon’ble court.

3. That the defendant No.1 is daughter in law of the

plaintiff, which was married with the said Nandan

Singh, but during the life-time of said Nandan Singh,

the defendant No.1 left the society of said Nandan

Singh and in this regard the Settlement and Separation

Deed was executed on 14.08.1998 between the son of the

plaintiff and defendant No.1. As per the clause no.3 of

the said Settlement and Separation Deed, it was settled

that son of the plaintiff has already made all claims

and benefits to the defendant No.1 and she has no

option to claim any in future and the same term is also

itself mentioned in the clause no.4 of the said

Settlement and Separation Deed. More over, in clause

no.5 of the said Settlement and Separation Deed, it has

even been clearly settled between the parties that the

defendant No.1 has no right over the property and

service benefit and other assets of Nandan Singh and

since then, she has been residing separately from the

3

said Nandan Singh along with her minor daughter and she

never visited the house of the plaintiff as well as

said Nandan Singh. She has no relation with the said

Nandan Singh. Copy of the said Settlement and

Separation Deed is attached with the plaint for the

kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

4. That the said Nandan Singh died on 07.06.2006 and

since then, the plaintiff became owner in possession of

the property in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of the

plaint being first class legal heirs of the deceased

Nandan Singh and she has been enjoying the fruit of the

suit property without any interfere or interruption of

anyone else.

5. That some time ago, the plaintiff rented out the

above said house in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of

the plaint to the defendant No.2, who has been residing

in the said house presently as tenant over the property

in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint.

6. That the defendant no.1 is a cunning and clever

lady, associated with some strong headed persons of the

society. After the death of said Nandan Singh she

became greedy and as such, She has also joined her

hands with the defendant No.2 also and so, the

defendants in conspired with each other wants to grab

4

the above said property of the plaintiff wrongly and

illegally by taking undue benefit of previous relation

with said Nandan Singh. However, the defendants have no

right, title, interest or concern whatsoever with the

said house in dispute in any manner.

7. That about 15 days back, the defendant No.1

visited the house of the plaintiff and threatened to

alienate the said property in dispute in favour of the

defendant No.2 wrongly and illegally and to hand over

the possession of the said property to the defendant

No.2 as owner of the said property, as she has already

entered into an agreement to sell the said house in

dispute with the defendant No.2 and has also received

the earnest money from the defendant No.2, to which,

the defendants have no right to do so and in case if

the defendants succeeded in their evil designs then the

plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss and injury,

which can not be compensated in any manner. The

plaintiff is an old aged ailing lady.

8. That the plaintiff requested the defendant no.1 to

admit the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit

property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaintiff and

also to treat the agreement if any, for the sale of the

said property in suit allegedly executed by the

defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant no.2, as

wrong, illegal, null, void and abnitio and not binding

5

on the rights of the plaintiff and further requested to

the defendant No.1 not to alienate the said house in

dispute in any manner taking undue benefit of previous

relation with said Nandan Singh, and also requested the

defendant No.2 to hand over the vacant possession of

the said house to the plaintiff, but the defendants

being in collusion with each other, did not pay any

heed to the request of the plaintiff and have now

finally refused to accede upon the request of the

plaintiff.

9. That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to

file the present suit firstly when the defendants

threatened the plaintiff to their illegal intention to

grab the said property of the plaintiff mentioned in

para no.1 of the plaintiff and lastly on 25.04.2007 by

the last refusal of the defendants to accede to the

genuine claim and request of the plaintiff. Hence this

suit.

10. That the property in suit is situated within the

M.C.Limits of Sonepat and the plaintiff has also been

residing at Sonepat, within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble court and hence this Hon’ble court has got

jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present

suit.

11. That the value of the suit for the purpose of

court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.200/- for each of the

6

relief, on which a prescribed court fee of Rs.25/- for

each relief i.e. Declaration, Possession and for

permanent injunction, total court fee of Rs.75/- has

been affixed on the plaint.

12. That no any other suit with regard to the property

in suit in between the parties to the suit has ever

been previously instituted, decided or is pending in

any court of law throughout country.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that a decree for

DECLARATION to the effect that the plaintiff is

absolute and exclusive owner in possession of the

property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint being the

Ist Class legal heir of deceased Nandan, to which, the

defendant has no right, title or interest in view of

said Settlement and Separation Deed dt.13 Aug, 1998 and

further declaring the said agreement to sell if any,

allegedly executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of

the defendant No.2 in respect of the said property in

dispute as wrong, illegal, null and void and not

binding on the rights of the plaintiff, and further a

decree for POSSESSION, directing the defendant no.2 to

hand over the vacant possession of the suit property

mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint to the plaintiff,

along with further a consequential relief of PERMANENT

INJUNCTION, restraining the defendant no.1 from

alienating the suit property in

7

any manner and further restraining the defendants from

interfering into the peaceful possession or ownership

of the plaintiff over the property in dispute mentioned

in para no.1 of the plaint for all times to come, may

kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against

the defendant with costs.

Special Cost together with such any other relief

which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper be

also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendants, in the interest of justice.

Verification:

Verified that the

contents of the above

plaint from paras No.1 to 9

and 12 are true to the best

of my knowledge and paras

No.10 & 11 to my belief and

last para is a prayer

clause to this Hon’ble

court.

Verified at Sonepat

ON:

Plaintiff

Basanti Devi wife of Narain

Singh, resident of

H.No.169-A/27, Vishal

Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat.

Through: Kamal Hooda,

Advocate

In the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Sonepat

---

Basanti Devi …Plaintiff

V/S

Sheela & another …Defendants

---

Suit For Declaration, Possession With

Consequential Relief of Permanent

Injunction

---

Affidavit

---

I, Basanti Devi wife of Narain Singh, resident of

H.No.169-A/27, Vishal Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat, do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That the deponent/plaintiff is permanent resident

of the above said address and is real mother of Nandan

Singh, who was husband of defendant No.1. The

deponent/plaintiff is the first class legal heirs of

the said Nandan Singh along with his children.

2. That said Nandan Singh s/o Sh.Narain Singh used to

be owner in possession of a plot measuring 50 sq.yards,

with dimensions East to West – 30 feet, North to South

15 feet, situated in the area of Sanicharan Basti,

within revenue estate of Kabirpur,

2

Sonepat, within M.C.Limits of Sonepat, vide a Regd.

Sale Deed No.3217 dated 15.09.2003. the copy of the

said sale deed is attached with the plaint for the kind

perusal of this Hon’ble court.

3. That the defendant No.1 is daughter in law of the

plaintiff, which was married with the said Nandan

Singh, but during the life-time of said Nandan Singh,

the defendant No.1 left the society of said Nandan

Singh and in this regard the Settlement and Separation

Deed was executed on 14.08.1998 between the son of the

plaintiff and defendant No.1. As per the clause no.3 of

the said Settlement and Separation Deed, it was settled

that son of the plaintiff has already made all claims

and benefits to the defendant No.1 and she has no

option to claim any in future and the same term is also

itself mentioned in the clause no.4 of the said

Settlement and Separation Deed. More over, in clause

no.5 of the said Settlement and Separation Deed, it has

even been clearly settled between the parties that the

defendant No.1 has no right over the property and

service benefit and other assets of Nandan Singh and

since then, she has been residing separately from the

said Nandan Singh along with her minor daughter and she

never visited the house of the plaintiff as well as

said Nandan Singh. She has no relation with the said

Nandan Singh. Copy of the said Settlement and

Separation Deed is attached with the plaint for the

kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

3

4. That the said Nandan Singh died on 07.06.2006 and

since then, the plaintiff became owner in possession of

the property in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of the

plaint being first class legal heirs of the deceased

Nandan Singh and she has been enjoying the fruit of the

suit property without any interfere or interruption of

anyone else.

5. That some time ago, the plaintiff rented out the

above said house in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of

the plaint to the defendant No.2, who has been residing

in the said house presently as tenant over the property

in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint.

6. That the defendant no.1 is a cunning and clever

lady, associated with some strong headed persons of the

society. After the death of said Nandan Singh she

became greedy and as such, She has also joined her

hands with the defendant No.2 also and so, the

defendants in conspired with each other wants to grab

the above said property of the plaintiff wrongly and

illegally by taking undue benefit of previous relation

with said Nandan Singh. However, the defendants have no

right, title, interest or concern whatsoever with the

said house in dispute in any manner.

7. That about 15 days back, the defendant No.1

visited the house of the plaintiff and threatened to

4

alienate the said property in dispute in favour of the

defendant No.2 wrongly and illegally and to hand over

the possession of the said property to the defendant

No.2 as owner of the said property, as she has already

entered into an agreement to sell the said house in

dispute with the defendant No.2 and has also received

the earnest money from the defendant No.2, to which,

the defendants have no right to do so and in case if

the defendants succeeded in their evil designs then the

plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss and injury,

which can not be compensated in any manner. The

plaintiff is an old aged ailing lady.

8. That the plaintiff requested the defendant no.1 to

admit the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit

property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaintiff and

also to treat the agreement if any, for the sale of the

said property in suit allegedly executed by the

defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant no.2, as

wrong, illegal, null, void and abnitio and not binding

on the rights of the plaintiff and further requested to

the defendant No.1 not to alienate the said house in

dispute in any manner taking undue benefit of previous

relation with said Nandan Singh, and also requested the

defendant No.2 to hand over the vacant possession of

the said house to the plaintiff, but the defendants

being in collusion with each other, did not pay any

heed to the request of the plaintiff and have now

finally refused to accede upon the request of the

plaintiff.

5

9. That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to

file the present suit firstly when the defendants

threatened the plaintiff to their illegal intention to

grab the said property of the plaintiff mentioned in

para no.1 of the plaintiff and lastly on 25.04.2007 by

the last refusal of the defendants to accede to the

genuine claim and request of the plaintiff. Hence this

suit.

10. That no any other suit with regard to the property

in suit in between the parties to the suit has ever

been previously instituted, decided or is pending in

any court of law throughout country.

Deponent

Verification:-

Verified that the contents of the above paras are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief.

Verified at Sonepat

ON:

Deponent

In the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Sonepat

---

Basanti Devi …Plaintiff

V/S

Sheela & another …Defendants

---

Suit For Declaration, Possession With

Consequential Relief of Permanent

Injunction

---

Application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 Read with section 151 CPC

---

Sir,

The plaintiff/applicant submits as under:-

1. That the plaintiff/applicant has got filed the

above noted suit before this Hon’ble court today, which

is most likely to be succeeded on the grounds mentioned

in the plaint, which may kindly be read as part of this

application also.

2. That about 15 days back, the defendant No.1

visited the house of the plaintiff and threatened to

alienate the said property in dispute in favour of the

defendant No.2 wrongly and illegally and to hand over

the possession of the said property to the defendant

No.2 as owner of the said property, as she has already

entered into an agreement to sell the said house in

2

dispute with the defendant No.2 and has also received

the earnest money from the defendant No.2, to which,

the defendants have no right to do so and in case if

the defendants succeeded in their evil designs then the

plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss and injury,

which can not be compensated in any manner. The

plaintiff is an old aged ailing lady.

3. That the plaintiff/applicant has prima-facie case

in his favour and balance of convenience is also in

favour of the plaintiff/applicant.

It is, therefore, prayed that an ad-interim

injunction, restraining the defendant no.1 from

alienating the suit property in any manner and further

restraining the defendants from interfering into the

peaceful possession or ownership of the plaintiff over

the property in dispute mentioned in para no.1 of the

plaint, during the pendency of the case, may kindly be

passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendants, in the interest of justice.

Verification:

Verified that the

contents of this

application true and

correct to my knowledge and

belief.

Verified at SonepatON:

Plaintiff

Basanti Devi wife of Narain

Singh, resident of

H.No.169-A/27, Vishal

Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat

Through: Kamal Hooda, Advocate

In the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat

---

Basanti Devi …Plaintiff

V/S

Sheela & another …Defendants

---

Suit For Declaration, Possession With

Consequential Relief of Permanent

Injunction

---

Affidavit---

I, Basanti Devi wife of Narain Singh, resident of

H.No.169-A/27, Vishal Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat, do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That the contents of accompanying application U/O

39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC are true and

correct to my knowledge and belief.

Deponent Verification:-

Verified that the contents of the above paras are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief.

Verified at SonepatON: Deponent