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