IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR

DIVISION PUNE AT PUNE

Regular. Civil Suit No. 1222 Of 2024

Shantilal Nanalal Rajvadha & Anr…….Plaintiffs

Following the Say & Written Statement filed on behalf of the

Defendants is as under:-

1) That the present suit is filed by plaintiffs praying for

injunction under Order XXXIX of CPC and under Sections

34, 36, 37 and 38 of The Specific Relief Act and the

injunction application thereto is not legal and valid and the

same is not maintainable at law.

2) That the defendants herein generally deny the whole

contents of the plaint and injunction application except those

which have been specifically admitted hereinunder.

3) At the outset the defendants submit that the immovable

property mentioned therein the para 1 of plaint and therein

the injunction application was absolutely owned and

1
possessed by the father of defendant and defendant never

ever handed over the possession of said property to the

plaintiffs in total as the actual area of said suit property is

718 Sq. Feet and the plaintiffs herein made statement that

they have acquired 40.32 Sq Mtr. i.e. equivalent to 435 Sq.

feet by virtue of agreement dated 20.06.1996 referred in the

plaint. It is submitted that the present plaintiffs have been

filed the present suit for injunction with reference to

agreement dated 20.06.1996 referred in the plaint, which is

itself not subsisting in eyes of law and it became illegal with

reference to following points:-

A) The description of property mentioned therein agreement

dated 20.06.1996 does not demarcate the holding and

possession of present plaintiffs as well as it does not match

with the described property.

B) Without prejudice to above referred content mentioned in

para A, the agreement dated 20.06.1996 in not available in

records of Sub Registrar Haveli Pune. Therefore, the

defendant has reason to believe that there is non-existence of

the agreement dated 20.06.1996.

2
C) Without prejudice to above referred content mentioned in

para A and B, it can be revealed while reading between the

lines of submitted copy of the agreement dated 20.06.1996

by plaintiffs herein, that the said dossier is undervalued and

recorded with deficient stamp duty at the time of execution.

Hence it is not legally valid.

4) That the contentions made in para 2 of the plaint and that

in the injunction application contains details of the

ownership of property and history pertaining to ownership of

father of defendant is generally true and correct.

5) That the contentions made in para 3 of the plaint and that

in the injunction application may be true and correct but the

defendant herein have no knowledge about the same hence

denied. The plaintiffs be put strict proof thereof.

6) That the contentions made in para 4 of the plaint and that

in the injunction application may be true and correct but the

defendant herein have no knowledge about the same as he

was minor at the relevant time, hence denied. The plaintiffs

be put strict proof thereof.

7) That the contentions made in para 5 of the plaint and that

in the injunction application is false and not correct and not

3
admitted to defendant. It is false to say that the plaintiffs are

in actual and physical possession of the said property from

the date of transfer. It is false to say that, since then the suit

property is in adverse possession of the plaintiffs and it is

also false to say that the plaintiffs are enjoying the actual and

physical possession of suit property without any interruption

since then.

8) That the contentions made in para 6 of the plaint and that

in the injunction application is false and not correct and not

admitted to defendant. It is submitted that the defendant

never consented the use of suit property as go-down. That

the defendant has no knowledge whether plaintiffs are in

business of stationery and books since 1990, hence denied.

The Plaintiffs be put strict proof thereof.

9) That the contentions made in para 7 and 8 of the plaint

and that in the injunction application is false and not correct.

It is false to say that plaintiffs repaired the suit property and

incurred expenses for same. It is submitted that the

defendant is staying in the premises of Aher Building and

suit property is part of basement. It is humbly submitted that

there was a small temple of Lord Hanumanji in basement

4
along with Talim where the training of Kushti (Wrestling)

was given by Aher family. It is false to say that as per

sanctioned lay out granted by authorities of Municipal

corporation Pune, the suit premises was a separate unit being

part of Aher Building and the plaintiffs herein had acquired

entire part of suit property by registered document. Hence

denied. The Plaintiffs be put strict proof thereof.

10) That the contentions made in para 9 of the plaint and

that in the injunction application is partly true and correct. It

is true to say that the defendant attained age of majority in

1999, but it is false to say that the defendant herein or his

family members never objected the possession and use of

suit premises as go down. Hence denied. The Plaintiffs be

put strict proof thereof.

11) That the contentions made in para 10 of the plaint and

that in the injunction application is partly true and correct. It

is true to say that the suit premises is part of Aher Building.

But it is false to say that recently the discussion for

redevelopment of said Aher building is started, therefore the

defendant has started nuisance to plaintiffs. It is false to say

that defendant is putting pressure on plaintiffs to leave the

5
suit property or sale the same at lower price. Hence denied.

The Plaintiffs be put strict proof thereof.

12) That the contentions made in para 11 of the plaint and

that in the injunction application is false and not correct. It is

false to say that the defendant has good contacts with the

politicians and local anti-social elements. It is false to say

that the defendant has created pressure on plaintiffs to sale

the suit premises for the consideration of Rs. 15 Lakh

Rupees. It is false to say that the defendant made the

plaintiffs to meet him forcibly and handed over cheques of

Rs. 15 Lakh Rupees. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff

no. 1 herein himself met the defendant and offered a

proposal to sale the disputed suit property to defendant for

consideration of Rs.15 Lakh. That the plaintiff no.1 himself

accepted said cheques and wrote his name in his own

handwriting and carried with him. The said event is duly

video graph by defendant at relevant time. The Defendant

will submit said video graph at the time of evidence and rely

on said video graph being part of his evidence.

13) That the contentions made in para 12 and 13 of the plaint

and that in the injunction application is false and not correct.

6
It is false to say that the defendant is an anti-social element,

It is humbly submitted that the defendant is reputed and

highly educated software engineer working with WIPRO

Technologies and well cultured law abiding [Link] is false

to say that the defendant has created pressure on plaintiffs

and threat to their life and property, therefore unwillingly

under pressure the plaintiffs were ready to sale the suit

premises for consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. It is false to say

that the defendant forcibly made the plaintiff to take the

cheques of Rs.15 lakhs as earnest money of deal and took

time for arrangements of remaining Rs. 25 Lakhs and

handed over cheques of Rs. 15 Lakh Rupees (having nos.

104, 105, 106 and107), but subsequently the defendant

changed his words. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiffs

with ill will and mala-fide intention of getting undue

advantage for higher price had created false story and made

averment of same in their plaint. Hence denied. The

Plaintiffs be put strict proof thereof. The defendant herein

humbly reiterates that the plaintiff no. 1 herein himself met

the defendant and offered a proposal to sale the disputed suit

property to defendant for consideration of Rs. 15 Lakh

Rupees. That the plaintiff no.1 himself accepted said cheques

7
and wrote his name in his own handwriting and took with

him. The said event is duly video graph by defendant at

relevant time. The Defendant will submit said video graph at

the time of evidence and rely on said video graph being part

of his evidence,

14) That the contentions made in para 14 of the plaint and

that in the injunction application is false and not correct. It is

false to say that the defendant herein filed false police

complaint against the plaintiffs herein at the Vishrambaug

Police Station, Pune City. Per contra the defendant has

invoked his criminal remedy by due procedure of law.

Remaining part of the contentions made in para 14 of the

plaint and that in the injunction application is part of record.

15) That the contentions made in para 15 of the plaint and

that in the injunction application generally true and correct

and it is part of record.

16) That the contentions made in para 16 of the plaint and

that in the injunction application is false and not correct. It is

false to say that the defendant herein continuously putting

pressure on plaintiffs for sale of suit property. It is false to

say that since few months the defendant herein continuously

8
using different tactics against the plaintiffs so that the

plaintiffs shall sale the suit property at lower price to

defendant. It is false to say that being part of it the defendant

created various mischiefs against the plaintiffs like sealing

the locks of go down of plaintiffs by using chemicals, fevi-

quick and putting his lock on door of go down. It is false to

say that due to this the defendants are compelled to put new

locks for 3 to 4 times on door of go down. As it being part

of record, it may be true that aggrieved by above mischiefs

the plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant on

16.06.2024 at Vishrambaug Police Station and police

referred the same as civil dispute. But the defendant is not

aware about any such complaint against him dated

16.06.2024, hence denied. The Plaintiffs be put strict proof

thereof.

17) That the contentions made in Para no. 17 of the plaint is

false and not correct. Hence the defendant deny the same in

totality. It is false to say that there is cause of action to file

and institute present suit against the defendant.

18) That the contentions made in Para no. 18 and 19 of

plaint is generally true and correct as it is part of record.

9
19) The defendant submit that the plaintiffs are not entitled

for any or all reliefs mentioned in prayer clause. The

defendant submit that the plaintiffs have suppressed material

facts and did not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble

Court.. The defendants submit that the plaintiffs with mala-

fide intention and ill will, are trying to restrain the defendant

from their right to enjoy the property by praying for

injunction. The defendant submit that the so called

agreement dated 16.06.1996 in not legally valid and

subsisting in law, so does not have any force of law.

20) The defendant submit that the plaintiffs have no prima

facie case. No balance of convenience lies in favour of

plaintiffs and no irreparable loss would be caused to the

plaintiffs if injunction is not granted. The defendants submit

that the plaintiffs are not in total possession of suit property

and the defendants are in and entitled for part possession of

suit property. Therefore, it shall please rejected and be

rejected.

21) The defendant submits that the plaintiffs are not entitled

for any or all reliefs from this Hon’ble Court which are

prayed for. That the defendant further submit that plaintiffs

10
have unnecessary drag the defendants in the court of Law,

by filing vexatious suit and therefore defendant be awarded

compensatory cost of Rs. 50000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) from

the plaintiffs.

22) It is therefore humbly prayed that :-

A) The Suit of Plaintiffs as well as Injunction application be

dismissed with heavy cost.

B) Compensatory Cost of Rs. 50000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand)

be awarded to each of defendants.

C) Any other just and equitable order which Hon’ble Court

thinks fit and proper be passed in favour of the Defendants.

At:- Pune

Dated:- 17.04.2025

(The Defendant)

(Advocate for the Defendant)

11
 VERIFICATION

I, Gokul Balkrishna Aher defendant herein of age:- 44

Years old Occ:- Service R/at Aher Building Near Sakal

Printing Press, Budhwar Peth Pune do hereby state on

solemn affirmation that the contents of foregoing paragraphs

of say and written statement are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, belief and information and in witness

whereof I have signed on 17th day of April in the year 2025

at Pune.

At: - Pune

Dated:- 17.04.2025 (Defendant)

(Gokul Balkrishna Aher)

12