IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, BAREILLY

Original Suit No. Year

In the matter of:

1. RAJKUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
S/O Nandkishore Shrivastava
R/O 103, Chahbai, Bareilly. ………PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. LATA BEN SHRIVASTAVA

W/O Late Prem Kumar Shrivastava
R/O A/30 Shri Ram Nagar B/H Narol Kothi
Ahmedabad, Gujarat

2. KAMAL SHRIVASTAVA
S/O Late Prem Kumar Shrivastava
R/O A/30 Shri Ram Nagar B/H Narol Kothi
Ahmedabad, Gujarat

3. DEEPA RANI
W/O Sanjay Deol
R/O 268 Jakati, Bareilly

4. RUBI RANI
W/O Kamal Deol
R/O 268 Jakati, Bareilly …….…DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF SALE DEEDS BETWEEN DEFENDANT NO. 1,2,3

AND 4 REGARDING PROPERTY NO. 103 CHAHBAI BAREILLY NULL AND VOID
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS RESTRICTING
THEM FROM INTERFERING OR DISPOSSESSING THE PLAINTIFF FROM THE
ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY.

Hon’ble Sir,
It is respectfully prayed:

1. That the maternal Grandaunt of the plaintiff through a Will registered on

25/08/1959 at Sub Registrar Sadar Bareilly at no. 62 on Pages from no. 63 to 66
of Volume/Book No. 61 had devolved/transferred a property namely 103
Chahbai, Bareilly to the Plaintiff Rajkumar Shrivastava and his brother late
Premkumar Shrivastava who is the husband of defendant no. 1 and father of
Defendant no. 2. The boundaries of the above mentioned 103 Chahbai, Bareilly
admeasuring around 165.84 square metre are as follows:
East- House of Hakim Chote Lal and Asharfi Lal
West- Road
North- House of Chunni Lal
South- Road
2. That the plaintiff has been living in the above mentioned property which consists
of a house as well as five shops since his birth and has been bearing the cost of
all the maintainence as well as new construction in the property. That the brother
of the plaintiff late Premkumar Shrivastava had shifted very early out of the
house to his workplace in Ahmedabad, Gujarat alongwith his wife defendant no.
1 and his Son defendant no. 2. That since then the plaintiff has been in full
control and occupation of the above mentioned property and carrying out the
responsibility regarding its maintenance and upkeep.
3. That there has never occurred any partition of the above mentioned family
property and the status has been the same since it was devolved to the plaintiff
and his late brother and the plaintiff Rajkumar Shrivastava has been occupying
and is in full control of the property since then.
4. That keeping the plaintiff in the dark the defendant no. 1 and 2 on 26/02/2024
registered two sale deeds regarding the above mentioned property as follows:
● Sale deed of an area of 45.98 sqaure Metre in favour of Deepa Rani
(defendant no. 3) registered on 26/02/2024 at Sub Registrar Sadar
Bareilly-II ( Bahi Sankhya 1, Jild Sankhya 15337, Page No. 69 to 86,
Serial No. 3140)
● Sale deed of an area of 45.98 sqaure Metre in favour of Rubi Rani
(defendant no. 4) registered on 26/02/2024 at Sub Registrar Sadar
Bareilly-II ( Bahi Sankhya 1, Jild Sankhya 15337,page no. 35 to 52, Serial
No. 3138)
5. That the above mentioned sale deeds have no effect because the Defendant no.
1 and 2 have exceeded in transferring the area of the property which they
rightfully inherited through succession. The area of the whole of the above
mentioned property situated at 103, Chahbai amounts to 165.84 square metre
which makes defendant no. 1 and 2 eligible to title of only 82.92 sqaure Metre
area of the property while they have combinedly transferred an area of 91.96
sqaure Metre exceeding their claim to the title.
6. That the defendant no. 3 and 4 even after the sale deeds in their favour are not
entitled to possession or interference by the virtue of Article 44 of the Transfer of
Property Act, which clearly states that transfer of an undivided family property by
one co-sharer will make the reciever only Stranger-Transferee and before
partition he will be treated only as a trespasser.
7. That it is well established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji
Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors 1990 AIR 867 that in matters of
transfer of the Undivided share of family property by one co-sharer, by the virtue
of Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act, the other co-sharer are entitled to
maintain their privacy and no stranger Transferee/trespasser can be allowed to
pierce this veil of protection. The hon'ble Apex court went to the extent that in
course of injunction for non interference against the stranger Transferee, the
remaining co-sharer are even entitled to ejectment of the stranger Transferee if
he or she has occupied the Undivided property to any extent.
8. That the defendant no. 3 and 4 are continuously threatening to enter the
premises of the above mentioned property at 103 Chahbai which occupied by the
plaintiff.
9. That the first cause of action arose on 26/02/2024 when the above mentioned
illegal sale deed was done by the defendant no. 1 and 2 in the favour of
defendant no. 3 and 4 and secondly when the defendants no. 3 and 4 threatened
the plaintiff to interfere in his peaceful possession.
10. That since the property is valued at around Rupees Sixty Lakh (Rs. 60,000/-)
and situated in Bareilly, the Hon'ble court has the jurisdiction to try it.
 11. That for the purpose of the jurisdiction and court fees, the suit is valued at
Rupees Sixty Lakh only (Rs. 60,000/-) and in accordance a court fees of Rs 200/-
for declaration and a court fees of Rs. 500/- for permanent injunction is paid.

Prayer

The plaintiff therefore prays:

12. That the following sale deeds in the favour of the defendant no. 3 and 4 be
declared null and void and the concerned Sub Registrar be directed to cancel
them from its record:
● Sale deed of an area of 45.98 sqaure Metre in favour of Deepa Rani
(defendant no. 3) registered on 26/02/2024 at Sub Registrar Sadar
Bareilly-II ( Bahi Sankhya 1, Jild Sankhya 15337, Page No. 69 to 86,
Serial No. 3140)
● Sale deed of an area of 45.98 sqaure Metre in favour of Rubi Rani
(defendant no. 4) registered on 26/02/2024 at Sub Registrar Sadar
Bareilly-II ( Bahi Sankhya 1, Jild Sankhya 15337,page no. 35 to 52, Serial
No. 3138)
13. That a permanent injunction be issued against defendant no. 3 Deepa Rani and
defendant no. 4 Rubi Rani from interfering in the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff Rajkumar Shrivastava and in case they make illegal interference in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff, a mandatory injunction by the virtue of Article
44 of Transfer of Property Act to eject them from the above mentioned property.

Verification

I, Rajkumar Shrivastava, the plaintiff above do solemnly declare that what is

stated in Paras 1 to 8 is true to my knowledge and that what is stated in the
remaining paras is stated on the information received by me and I believe it to be
true.

Date:
Place:
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, BAREILLY
Original Suit No. Year

In the matter of:

1. RAJKUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
…PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. LATA BEN SHRIVASTAVA

2. KAMAL SHRIVASTAVA
3. DEEPA RANI
4. RUBI RANI
….DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rajkumar Shrivastava, S/O Nandkishore Shrivastava, R/O 103, Chahbai Bareilly

solemnly affirm that:

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-noted suit and fully conversant with facts of
the case and able to depose about the same.
2. That the accompanying suit/plaint has been drafted by my counsel on my
instructions and contents of the plaint have been read over and explained to me
in vernacular language and I have understood the meaning and implications
thereof and the facts stated therein are correct.
3. That the contents of the suit are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity
and same shall be considered as part of this affidavit also.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

4. Verified at Bareilly on this______day of _____March 2024, that contents of the

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

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, BAREILLY
Original Suit No. Year

In the matter of:

1. RAJKUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
…PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. LATA BEN SHRIVASTAVA

2. KAMAL SHRIVASTAVA
3. DEEPA RANI
4. RUBI RANI
….DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

HON’BLE SIR,
It is most respectfully stated:
1. That the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which is
pending for disposal before the present Hon'ble court.
2. That the contents of the accompanying suit be read as the part of this application
which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. That it has been clearly mentioned in the suit that the plaintiff is protected against
the piercing of the veil by the Stranger- Transferee by the virtue of the Article 44,
Transfer of Property Act.
4. That it is well established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji
Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors 1990 AIR 867 that in matters of transfer
of the Undivided share of family property by one co-sharer, by the virtue of
Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act, the other co-sharer are entitled to
maintain their privacy and no stranger Transferee/trespasser can be allowed to
pierce this veil of protection. The hon'ble Apex court went to the extent that in
course of injunction for non interference against the stranger Transferee, the
remaining co-sharer are even entitled to ejectment of the stranger Transferee if
he or she has occupied the Undivided property to any extent.
5. That hence the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants.

Prayer

That the Hon’ble court be pleased to pass a temporary injunction in order to restrict the
interference of the defendants no. 3 and 4 in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff
during the course of trial and if the the defendants are able to establish their illegal
possession anyhow then the defendants be ejected from the property as per the
findings of the Hon’ble Supre Court.

Place: PLAINTIFF
Date: