BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

SRINAGAR

Civil Suit No:

In the case of:

O. Agha previously known as Ali Agha
Son of Nasir Ai Agha
Resident of Grey Stone, Rajbagh Srinagar Kashmir,
At present Town House 101, Motor City, Green community Dubai
Through his duly constituted Attorney Gulzar Ahmad Khankashi
Son of Ab. Aziz Khankashi resident of Munawarabad Srinagar

..Plaintiff
Vs

1, Dr. Nasir Ali Agha

Son of Late Agha Zaffar Ali
Residing at Grey Stone Rajbagh Srinagar
2. Mrs Shahama alias Shaheena
Wife of Dr. Nasir Ali Agha
C/o Grey stone Rajbagh Srinagar
..Defendants
IN THE MATTER OF:Written Statement on behalf of Defendants.

May it please your Honour,

The Written Statement is submitted as under:-

PRELIMENARY OBJECTIONS:
That the suit at all is not maintainable by the plaintiff in view of the fact that the
plaintiff who has taken the Irish citizenship and thereby voluntarily has given up
Indian citizenship and, therefore, no more remains the State subject of Jammu and
Kashmir. On this account the plaintiff can't claim any right in respect of
immovable property in the Jammu and Kashmir. On this count the suit is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

PARAWISE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

1. In reply to Para 1 it is submitted that the property situated at Rajbagh plot No.
71, has been Government property and the property had been leased out to
defendant No. 1 by the Government way back in 1978 and thereafter from time to
time the said lease has been extended. Copies of the communication to this extent
from the Government showing that the defendant No. 1 has been lessee of the
aforesaid property are collectively annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.

The defendant No. 1 who was an IAS officer and has held important positions in
the State of Jammu and Kashmir thereafter defendant No 1 has served in the
Government of India wherefrom he retired. The defendant No. 1 had constructed

two storied building the aforesaid land, which was leased out to the defendant No.
1 and defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and defendants are legally in
the said house. It is denied that the plaintiff has been putting up in the said house.
The plaintiff is not residing in the Jammu and Kashmir State. The plaintiff is
having Irish citizenship and as and when he comes to Kashmir he puts up in a
Hotel. The defendant No. 1 had been sending money to the plaintiff as the plaintiff
had been moving from one country to another and spent the money which was sent
by the defendant. In any case at no point of time the plaintiff had neither worked in
State of J&K nor has sent single penny to Jammu and Kashmir therefore, there is
no question of having acquired the property in the Jammu and Kashmir State. It is
necessary to mention here that the aforesaid land was thereafter transferred under
the Roshni Act in favor of defendant No. 1 who subsequently has transferred the
said property to defendant No. 2 as she is the only person who is looking after the
answering defendant No. 1. Besides it is submitted that the plaintiff had given a
power of attorney in favor of defendant No. 1 and any interest which the plaintiff
was having has been transferred on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney and
the money which became available was sent to plaintiff from time to time.

2. In reply to para-2 of the suit, It is submitted that it is denied that the plaintiff had
absolute right with respect to the land and so far as building is concerned that was
constructed long before the plaintiff had born and the defendants are living in the
said house and the plaintiff who is the son of plaintiff No. 1, after giving him

education and sending him money which he has been spending in various countries
has filed the present suit in order to throw the defendants out their house. It may be
submitted here that the plaintiff besides having acquired foreign citizenship has
also changed his religion and turn to Christianity. In view of the personal law,
which is applicable to the answering defendant and which was applicable to the
plaintiff when he was Muslim, they were governed by Muslim Personal law (Shia
sect) and as per the personal law he has no right or interest in the property of the
defendant No. 1 as he has lost his rights after converting from Islam to Christianity.

3. In reply to Para 3, it is denied that the plaintiff has remained out of country in
connection with profession. The plaintiff has left the country and has been living in
foreign country and acquired the citizenship of foreign country and as such, has
lost the citizenship of India as per the Constitution and the law.

As has been already submitted, it is denied that the plaintiff has any right with
respect to the suit property. It is denied that the plaintiff has any right upon any
land in Mujgund as the plaintiff has not produced any revenue records to this
extent, as such; the plaintiff needs to be put to strict proof with respect to the
ownership of the suit land which he alleges owns.

It is denied that the defendant has usurped the land of the plaintiff. The allegations
are vague hence denied. It is very unfortunate and painful for the answering
defendant No. 1 to reply to the allegations made by the plaintiff against his father;
Defendant No. 1 married with defendant No. 2. This itself speaks about the
mindset of the plaintiff. The suit needs to be dismissed at the very threshold. The
plaintiff has not been able to prove and establish any right with respect to the socalled land of which mention has been made in the Para under reply. Averments are
based on surmises and conjecture. Hence denied. So far as the cancellation of the
power of attorney is concerned, it is submitted that the answering defendants are
not aware about the aforesaid cancellation of power of attorney. In any case,
anything done on the basis of power of attorney, prior to cancellation, can't be
revoked by the plaintiff and is binding upon him.

4. In reply to contents of Para 4 of the suit, it is submitted that the plaintiff can't
question his own power of attorney. It is submitted here that the power of attorney
given by the plaintiff for the purpose and if the said power of attorney has been
used and used for the said purpose, is binding upon the plaintiff more so it may be
submitted that it is denied that the defendant has usurped the money of the
plaintiff. In fact the defendant has always been sending him the money from time
to time because the plaintiff could not settle anywhere and has been moving from
one country to another. The plaintiff instead of performing his duties as an obedient
and faithfully son has tried to bring defendant and his reputation on road. The

answering defendant has always remained upright officer and has been first
Kashmiri to reach to the level of Union Secretary in the Govt of India. However,
unfortunately, the plaintiff is trying to malign the defendants and is has become
necessary to mention here that for the maintenance of the plaintiff the defendant
was forced to sell prime property in Delhi also and proceeds of that property was
sent to plaintiff who has all along been moving from one country to another and
also has changed his religion besides having given up Indian citizenship thereby
lost all the rights in the Jammu and Kashmir.

5. In reply to the contents of para-5 it is submitted that the plaintiff is not supposed
to dictate to defendant as to how and in what manner he should deal with the
property. It is denied that any Flat in Delhi had been given to defendant No. 2. It is
submitted that the answering defendant No. 1 has executed a Will respect to
Phalgam property in favor of defendant No. 2. It is submitted that defendant No. 2
who is the wife of defendant No. 1 and has been at this old age looking after the
defendant No.1 and the plaintiff, who, unfortunately happens to be son of
defendant No. 1 has deserted him and has gone and settled outside the country.

It may be submitted here that the plaintiff is not governed by Muslim Personal Law
(Shia sect) and the plaintiff has after converting to Christianity has lost all his
rights in the property of the answering defendant No. 1 has his personal law.

6.In reply to Para -6 it is submitted that on one hand in Para 5 the plaintiff has
admitted that land hadPhalgam has been given to defendant No. 2 and it is not
known as to what right the plaintiff has to advise the defendants as to in what
manner they shall deal with the property. Allegations made in the Para under reply
are denied.

7. In reply to Para 7 it is submitted that no cause of action has accrued to the

plaintiff as has already been submitted hereinabove that the plaintiff is no longer
Indian citizen and has lost Indian citizenship and has also lost his right to hold the
property in the Jammu and Kashmir, as he is not a State Subject in accordance with
the Constitution and law.

8. In reply to Para-8 it is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try
and hear this suit. The suit is not properly valued nor has proper ad valorem court
fee been paid.

In this view of the matter, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.

In the premises it is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss
the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
Answering Defendant No.1through Counsel
(M/S NAIK & ASSOCIATES)
Advocate
Place: Srinagar:
Dated 2 -7-2013

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: SRINAGAR

Civil Suit No:

In the case of:

O. Agha previously known as Ali Agha
Son of Nasir Ai Agha
Resident of Grey Stone, Rajbagh Srinagar Kashmir,
At present Town House 101, Motor City, Green community Dubai
Through his duly constituted Attorney Gulzar Ahmad Khankashi
Son of Ab. Aziz Khankashi resident of Munawarabad Srinagar

..Plaintiff
Vs

1. Dr. Nasir Ali Agha

Son of Late Agha Zaffar Ali
Residing at Grey Stone Rajbagh Srinagar
2. Mrs Shahama alias Shaheena
Wife of Dr. Nasir Ali Agha
C/o Grey stone Rajbagh Srinagar
..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
I,Dr.Nasir Ali Agha, Son of Late Agha Zaffar Ali, aged about___ years residing at Grey Stone
Rajbagh Srinagarsolemnly do hereby state on oath as under :1. That I am the Defendant No.1 in the instant suit, and therefore competent to swear this
affidavit on oath.
2. That the accompanying written statement has been drafted on my instructions and I have
read and understood its contents.
3. That the contents of Para 1 to 8 of the attached written statement are true to the best of
my knowledge and for sake of brevity nothing has repeated.

DEPONENT

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: SRINAGAR

Civil Suit No:

In the case of:

O. Agha previously known as Ali Agha
Son of Nasir Ai Agha
Resident of Grey Stone, Rajbagh Srinagar Kashmir,
At present Town House 101, Motor City, Green community Dubai
Through his duly constituted Attorney Gulzar Ahmad Khankashi
Son of Ab. Aziz Khankashi resident of Munawarabad Srinagar

..Plaintiff
Vs

1. Dr. Nasir Ali Agha

Son of Late Agha Zaffar Ali
Residing at Grey Stone Rajbagh Srinagar
2. Mrs Shahama alias Shaheena
Wife of Dr. Nasir Ali Agha
C/o Grey stone Rajbagh Srinagar
..Defendants

AFFIDAVIT
I, Mrs Shahama alias Shaheena, aged about ___ years, wife of Dr. Nasir Ali Agha, c/o Grey stone
Rajbagh Srinagar do hereby state on oath as under :1. That I am the Defendant No.2 in the instant suit, and therefore competent to swear this
affidavit on oath.
2. That the accompanying written statement has been drafted on my instructions and I have
read and understood its contents.
3. That the contents of Para 1 to 8 of the attached written statement are true to the best of
my knowledge.

DEPONENT

Verification:
Verified this the 26th day of July, 2013 at Srinagar that the factual Para wise reply
hereinabove Paras 1 to 8 (supra) are true to the best of my knowledge and the
legal pleas taken therein as also in the preliminary objections are believed to be
true and correct as per legal advice tendered and nothing material has been
suppressed or concealed.
Answering Defendant No.1. &2.