BEFORE THE COURT OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT

MUNSIF AT TIRUPATHUR

O.S. No. 163 / 2025

1) Kulanthaiammal
2) Geetha
3) Karthick
4) Sigamani :: Plaintiffs

Versus

1) Raman
2) Lakshmanan
3) Murugan
4) Lakshmi
5) Perumal :: Defendants

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO – 3 UNDER ORDER

(ADOPTED BY DEFENDANT NO – 1 & 4)

1) At the out-set, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is prima facie not maintainable
either in law or on the facts of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed in-
limine.
2) It is submitted that the answering Defendant has gone through the averments
made in the plaint and the averments made therein, which are not specifically
admitted, are denied.
3) The Plaintiffs have caused to file the suit praying to declare the Settlement
Deed registered as dated 14.10.20222 registered vide Doc. No.3717/2022 and the
Sale Deed dated 31.01.2025 registered vide Doc. No.605/2025 and also for the grant
a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants their men, agents, claiming
anybody under them from interfering with the alleged joint possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same.
--2-
 2

Most of the averments are not correct and false and the suit is not maintainable
under the eye of law and hence be dismissed.
4) That the Plaintiffs have filed the suit suppressing several material facts and
without properly constituting the parties to the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed
for non-joinder of necessary parties and improper description of parties.
5) That the Plaintiffs have not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands
and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6) Without prejudice to the above contentions, the Defendant submit that the
suit as framed is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, as the plaint does not disclose a valid cause of action and is barred by
law. The Plaintiffs, being strangers to the documents, have sought to declare the
Settlement Deed and Sale Deed as null and void without seeking declaration of their
title or partition. The suit is therefore fundamentally defective and not maintainable
in law.
7) The Plaintiffs have not established any subsisting right over the suit property.
Without establishing such right, the relief of declaration sought is not maintainable
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit is therefore liable to be
rejected at the threshold.
8) The averments contained in Para No. 1 of the plaint are false, misleading and
denied except to the extent of the registered Sale Deed dated 01.08.1988 bearing
Document No. 2288/1988. It is specifically submitted that the Plaintiffs have
deliberately created a false narrative as if the entire suit property originally belonged
to Kariyakonar and that the Defendant No. 1 had purchased only a limited share
therein. The said allegation is wholly incorrect. The purchase made by the
Defendant No. 1 under the said Sale Deed was out of his own independent funds
and the same constitutes his separate and absolute property. The Plaintiffs have no
manner of right, title or interest over the same. The Plaintiffs are attempting to
mischaracterize a self-acquired property as joint family property, which is legally
impermissible. The Plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that the
property is ancestral or joint family property.
 3

9) The averments contained in Para No. 2 of the plaint relating to alleged oral
partition and long enjoyment are false, invented and denied in toto. There was no
oral partition as alleged by the Plaintiffs. The alleged division of properties said to
have taken place several decades ago is a fabricated story without any documentary
support. The Plaintiffs have not produced any revenue record, patta, tax receipt or
any independent evidence to substantiate such claim. The allegation that the
Plaintiffs constructed houses and have been enjoying the properties is also denied.
10) The averments contained in Para No. 3 of the plaint are partly correct only to
the extent that Govindasamy died on 31.10.2018 and Balaraman died on
12.12.2022. It is specifically submitted that Kariyakonar had another daughter
namely Banu, who is also a legal heir and necessary party to the proceedings. The
Plaintiffs have deliberately suppressed this material fact and have not disclosed the
complete genealogy, thereby misleading this Hon’ble Court. The allegation that the
suit property is jointly owned and enjoyed by the Plaintiffs and Defendants is false
and denied.
11) The averments contained in Para No. 4 of the plaint alleging interference are
false, baseless and denied. The alleged incident dated 13.07.2025 is imaginary and
created only for the purpose of filing the present suit. No such interference or
obstruction has taken place as alleged. The Plaintiffs are not in possession of the
suit property and therefore the question of interference does not arise.
12) The averments contained in Para No. 5 of the plaint are false and denied
except to the extent of execution of the Settlement Deed dated 14.10.2022 bearing
Document No. 3717/2022. It is submitted that the said Settlement Deed was
executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of this Defendant out of his valid, lawful
and absolute right, title and possession over the property. The said document is
valid, legally enforceable and binding. The allegation that the same is fraudulent or
not valid is specifically denied. The Plaintiffs, being strangers to the said document,
have no right to question the same. The averments relating to the Sale Deed dated
31.01.2025 bearing Document No. 605/2025 are denied except to the extent of
execution. It is submitted that the said Sale Deed was executed for valid
 4

consideration in favour of the Defendant No. 4 and the same is valid and binding.
The Plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the said document. The averments
that the said documents are null and void are false, untenable and denied. The
Plaintiffs are not parties to the said documents and hence they cannot seek
cancellation or declaration of nullity. At best, they could have sought a declaration
that the documents are not binding on their alleged share. The relief as framed is
legally misconceived and the suit is not maintainable. The allegations relating to
patta and revenue entries being obtained fraudulently are false and denied. The
revenue records stand in accordance with lawful title and possession. The Plaintiffs
have not challenged the same before the competent authority. The averments
relating to alleged attempts of alienation and interference are false and denied. The
Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. Hence, they are not entitled to
any relief of injunction. The suit for injunction without possession is not
maintainable.
13) The averments contained in Para No. 6 of the plaint are denied. The Plaintiffs
have not sought essential reliefs such as declaration of title or partition. Without
establishing their legal right, the Plaintiffs cannot seek to invalidate registered
documents. The suit is therefore fundamentally defective.
14) The averments contained in Para No. 7 relating to cause of action are false
and denied. No valid cause of action has arisen for filing the suit. The alleged cause
of action is artificial and created.
15) The averments relating to valuation and court fee are specifically denied. The
valuation adopted is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to statutory provisions.
16) The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the legal heir namely
Banu has not been properly impleaded or her rights adjudicated.
17) The suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of proper relief, as the
Plaintiffs have not sought partition or declaration of title.
18) The suit is vexatious, frivolous and filed only to harass the Defendants.
19) All other averments not specifically admitted herein are denied in toto.
 5

20) The Defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of their respective
properties and the Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest to interfere with the same.
21) The suit is liable to be dismissed both on preliminary grounds and on merits.
22) The Defendant respectfully submit that the present Written Statement is
being filed without prejudice to the contentions raised in the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., The Defendants further submit that in the event of
disposal of the said application and depending upon the outcome thereof, the
Defendants reserve their right to file an additional Written Statement, to raise
further pleas, legal contentions and additional facts, if any, as may be necessary for
proper adjudication of the suit. The Defendant therefore pray that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to permit him to file such additional Written Statement at a
later stage, if required.
WHEREFORE, under the above circumstances and foregoing reasons, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs, by treating this suit is frivolous,
vexatious in nature and to impose costs under Sections 35 A and 95 of C.P.C., in the
interest of justice and equity.

Counsel for the Defendant No. 3 Defendant No. 3

VERIFICATION
I, R. Murugan, the Defendant No. 3, do hereby declare that the contents of written
statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and rest of
the paras are on basis of information and legal advice and verified at Vaniyambadi
on this the 08th day of April, 2026.

Defendant No. 3