Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Translation
Translation
2. Sanjay Pathak
1. That plaintiff No. 2 is the caretaker and agent of plaintiff No.1 and he
lives at the house of plaintiff No. 1 at Malviya Nagar Mahadeva and
carries out the work of plaintiff No. 1 and her husband Shri Parasnath
Pathak.
2. That Malviya Nagar Mahadev police station siwan (M) District Sivan is
the residential building of plaintiff No.1 which is in account No. 147
Survey No. 446, area 17.1/2 dhur, and the residential building is located
on the first axis Account No. 140 and Survey No. 447.
3. That in survey No.446, the said 17.1/2 dhur land was acquired by the
plaintiff No. 1 from his stridhan money through two sale deeds dated
22.12.1997 from Satyendra Narayan Singh and Vijendra Narayan Singh.
Basically this the land was the land of Ramayan Shah which was
purchased by Sandra Narayan Singh and Vijyendra Narayan Singh
through a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1990 from him.
4. That the said Ramayan Shah executed the sale deed of east 15 Dhur Ash
in survey No. 146 on 12.10.1990 in the name of the defendant and the
defendant later got some rooms constructed in it for her residence.
5. That the said Land of the defendant is situated is situated to the east,
adjacent to the land of Vani S-1.
6. That plaintiff No. 1 lives with her husband in patna and Kolkata and her
house in Malviya Nagar is taken care of by plaintiff No. 2.
7. That the defendant and her family members are very bold and powerful
people. In the month of April 2000, they encouraged on the road axis by
moving north from their land and building and started construction of
the Verandah. Plaintiff No 2 at that time informed the local police and
the police submitted a report under section 144 Cr.Pc.
8. That the Plaintiff No. 2 had opposed the construction of the verandah by
encroaching on the roadby the defendant and by informing the local
police, the process of section 144 was initiated due to which the
Defendant and her husband became angry with the plaintiffs and started
harassing the plaintiffs.
10.That after the said encroachment, when petitioner S-2 came to the
house, he interrogated the defendant in this regard and also requested
her to break the encroachment. On the request of Plaintiff No. 2 , the
defendant agreed to get the land measured and with her consent amin
was called and got the measurement done. After measurement by Amin,
it became clear that the defendant has encroached upon the eastern
portion of the land owned by plaintiff C-1, measuring 4 feet wide and 55
feet long, and constructed a wall on it. After knowing the details of the
measurer, the defendant had told the plaintiffs that she would soon
remove the encroachment by demolishing the wall. When the defendant
did not remove the encroachment for a few days, a Panchayat was held
regarding this matter and in that Panchayat also the Defendant
promised to remove the encroachment by erecting a wall within 6
months.
11.That the plaintiffs requested the defendant several times to remove the
encroachment but the defendant keep postponing the time by making
some excuse or the other and finally on 21.04.2002 refused to demolish
the wall and remove the encroachment. Therefore there is a need for
the litigants to come to the court.
12.That the defendant has encroached on 4 feet wide and 55 feet long i.e
three and a quarter miles from the land of plaintiff c-1 and has illegally
constructed a wall on it defendant 2 stated that this action is completely
inappropriate , illegal and unethical. The defendant is bound to demolish
the said Awadh Construction and return the said encroached land of
plaintiff C-1 TO HER.
13.That the original date of the case was 14.07.2000, on which date the
defendant encroached on the disputed Land of plaintiff No. 1 and
constructed a wall on it and 21.04.2002, on which date even on the last
request of the plaintiffs, the defendant had constructed the wall.
Rejected from demolition and removal of encroachment, Mohalla
Malviya Nagar New Basti Mahadeva Police station Siwan (m) District
siwan originated under the jurisdiction of this court.
14.That the disputed land acquired by the defendant is about three and a
quarter acres whose value is approximately Rs 5000 and the same is the
value of this suit also.
The plaintiffs demanded the following relief by providing adequate fee on this
amount of Rs 5000/-
Anotosh
A. Considering the above facts, the defendant's wall should be removed from
the disputed land and plaintiff C-1 should be given possession of it again.
B. The suit settlement should be given to plaintiff No. 1 from the defendant.
C... In the view of the court, if the plaintiff is entitled to 10-1 any other relief,
then it should also be provided to the defendant. Details of disputed land
Located Mohalla Matriviya Nagar New Basti Mahadeva Police Station (0) Siwan
Old Vice 9.
Khatas Sir S 4 feeT widE and 55 feet long land 147-445 which is about three
and a quarter feet away. Crachan A-Road 0 Rajan Srivastava The building
rooms of the format defendant Kalavarti Padak 40- Land of Vadini No. 1 Sanjay
Pathak We, Kalavati Pathak and Sanjay Pathak Yadani, agree that the
information given by us in Kul Jamoon Patrika is true, there is nothing wrong in
it, it is hidden only in the secret. Siwan date April 2002 Kalavati Padvu sajya
pah.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE
Versus
1. That the person against whom the Sudaiyan case has been filed
against Unwan is not legally capable of walking. In 82, it is clear that
the case has been filed for false reasons. BRECR076C23 1946 83 I am
that Mokadama Mudaiyan is Tamadi Motir. 848
2. That the plaintiff, who is arguing internally, does not have any kind of
reality due to which the case is not worthy of being filed. 94400 Now
Dy pramadadai 858 That Maliyat Mokadama Baja Madaiyan has
deliberately given very little. The price of bed quarrel is definitely not
Rs 5000.
The minimum preparation cost at market
rate is Rs 25000.
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
That I am the plaintiff 101 in the above suit, I swear that the entire facts of the
suit are correct to the best of my knowledge and information and there is
nothing wrong or hidden in it.
Plaintiff, I declare that the entire contents of the affidavit mentioned above
are correct and there is nothing wrong or hidden in it.
Place – Siwan
Versus
Munsif I Siwan
02/03/2019
Court First Munsif Siwan
TS. No 68/2002 20.9.22