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,

Consequential

Relief

Possession
of

With

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
Honble 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 Honble 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

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

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.
file

That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to

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
Honble court and hence this Honble 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

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
absolute

to

and

the

effect

exclusive

that

owner

in

the

plaintiff

possession

of

is
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

alienating the suit property in

defendant

no.1

from

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 Honble 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
contents

that

of

the

the

Plaintiff

above

plaint from paras No.1 to 9

Basanti Devi wife of Narain

and 12 are true to the best

Singh,

of my knowledge and paras

H.No.169-A/27,

No.10 & 11 to my belief and

Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat.

last

para

clause

to

is

this

resident

of
Vishal

prayer
Honble

court.

Through: Kamal Hooda,

Advocate

Verified at Sonepat
ON:

In

the

Sonepat

court

of

Ld.

Civil

Judge,

Senior

Division,

--Basanti Devi

Plaintiff
V/S

Sheela & another

Defendants
--Suit

For

Declaration,

Consequential

Relief

Possession
of

With

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 Honble 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 Honble 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.
file

That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to

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

Sonepat
---

Judge,

Senior

Division,

Basanti Devi

Plaintiff
V/S

Sheela & another

Defendants
--Suit

For

Declaration,

Consequential

Possession

Relief

of

With

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 Honble 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,

injunction,

therefore,
restraining

prayed
the

that

an

defendant

ad-interim
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
contents
application

that
of

the

Plaintiff

this

true

and

Basanti Devi wife of Narain

correct to my knowledge and

Singh,

belief.

H.No.169-A/27,

Verified at Sonepat

resident

of
Vishal

Nagar, Gali No.2, Sonepat

ON:
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,

Consequential

Possession

Relief

of

With

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

belief.
Verified at Sonepat
ON:

Deponent

and