A SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE   CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE
AT PUNE
Shri __. R__. A__. G __.,	)
age 43 years, occupation - service,	)
resident of 222 Budhwar Peth,	)
PUNE 411 002.	)
Versus
1.	Shri	A	J	N __.,	)
age 76 years, occupation - service,	)
2.	Shri         DAN,	)
age 55 years, occupation - service,	)
3.	Shri	V	A	G __,	)
age 42 years, occupation - agriculture,	)
4.	Smt.	G	V	G_,	)
age 35 years, occupation - agriculture,	)
all residents of Alandi, Taluka Khed,	)
District Pune.	)
Civil Suit No. __/200_
Plaintiff
Defendants
A SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF THE INSTRUMENT
The plaintiff abovenamed submits this plaint, praying to state as
follows :
1. Description of Property : All that pieces and parcels of land situate within the Registration Division & District Pune, Sub-Division & Taluka Khed, within the local limits of the Pune Zilla Parishad, revenue village Alandi, bearing S. Nos. 999 and 1000, totally admeasuring 12 hectares or thereabouts.
2. The Pedigree : That the pedigree is as follows :

That the defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, while the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff are the real brothers and the defendant No. 3 is their sister, while the defendant No. 4 is the husband of the defendant No. 3 and the son-in-law of the defendant No. 1.
3. That the properties described in para  1 above along with other properties were and are ancestral properties of the Hindu joint family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and. The defendant No. 1 has two sons, namely the present plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, and three daughters, namely Smt. MNJ, Smt. PMM and Smt. the defendant No. 3.
4. That the daughters are married long back, and they are not dependent
on the family, nor are they the members of the family.
5. That the defendant No. 1 is an old man deriving a large income from the  family properties  and  he  does  not have  any need for any additional money.   The defendant No. 2 is a teacher and earning sufficiently for his own maintenance.
6. That,   however,   the  defendants  unnecessarily  developed  enmity towards the plaintiff.
7. That taking the benefit of the fact that since the plaintiff is in the employment of the Government of Maharashtra working as a Deputy Engineer, he is required to stay away from the village, and he is not in a position to restrict and control the day-to-day acts of the defendants, the defendant No. 1, at the instigation of the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, started planning the things in such a manner that the plaintiff should be deprived of his legitimate share in the family properties.
8. That as a part and parcel of their plan, long back in 1990, the defendant No. 1 sold the property bearing Survey Nos. 999 and 1000 totally  admeasuring   12   Hectares.     Though   there  was  no   legal necessity or the benefit of estate. This transaction itself was illegal and invalid, too.   However, when the plaintiff made enquiries with the defendants, they promised that this area would be adjusted against the shares of the defendant Nos.  1 and 2.    However, the second step of the said scheme was taken by the defendant No. 1 on 	when the defendant No. 1 sold the suit lands to the defendant
No. 3, on	, for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and the said sale-deed
is registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajgurunagar, at Sr. No. 555, and a xeroxed copy of the Index thereof is annexed.
9. That it is the contention of this plaintiff that the said lands are rich
in quality and fertile, and the market price of the land would not be
less than Rs.   Besides, after taking into account the value of the two wells and the trees therein, the total value of the said properties would be more than Rs. 2,00,000/-.
10. That from the said transaction, it is evident that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- shown on the sale-deed appears to be a concocted thing, and it must be just to put up a show of the sale, while, in fact, just to defeat the right of the plaintiff.  The property has been assigned by the defendant No. 1, at the instigation of the defendant No. 2. to his son-in-law and daughter, and, thus, the said transaction is fraudulent and null and void.   However, even if the Hon'ble Court were to the conclusion that the transaction is valid, it cannot have the effect of conveying the plaintiffs l/3rd undivided interest in the said properties.
11. That the said transaction, dated	However, the plaintiff learnt about it only on or about	and then, he made personal enquiries on	However, they gave false replies, and hence, this suit. 
12. That the cause of action for this suit first arose on	, when the sale-deed came to be executed, and hence, the suit filed today is well within the time.
13. That the property is situate as well as the parties reside within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, and hence, this Hon'ble
Court has jurisdiction to try and decide this suit.
14. That the suit is valued for the properties and jurisdiction and the amount against the consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and the proper court-fee is paid herewith. In addition to the same, for the relief and declaration, a further court-fee of Rs. 300/- is paid herewith.
15. That the plaintiff, therefore, prays that -
(A) It be decided that the sale-deed, dated	, registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Khed, at Sr. No. 555, is null and void and inoperative, and the same be called for and cancelled;
(B)The plaintiff alternatively prays that, if the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the sale-deed is not void, the plaintiff claims that it be declared that the said sale-deed is not binding on the plaintiffs 1 /3rd share in the said properties;
(C)The plaintiff be paid his costs from the defendants; and Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed.
Pune,	Sd/- RAG
PLAINTIFF
Dated :	
Sd/-xXX 
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Shri RAG, the present plaintiff, doe hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this plaint in paras 1 to 15 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, so I have signed hereunder.
Sd/- RAG PLAINTIFF