IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE MUNSIFF-I (P) KOZHIKODE
O.S. No 336/2018
Ashokan - Plaintiff
Bhaskaran & Others - Defendants
WRITTEN STATEMENT presented on behalf of the second,
third and fourth defendants mentioned above, under Order
VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The defendants No: 2, 3 and 4 most humbly submits before
this Hon’ble Court as follows:
1. The defendants No.2, 3 and 4 denies all the allegations
contained in the plaint except those are specifically admitted
by them as true herein.
2. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable
either in law or facts and is an abuse of process of the law,
thus liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. The contents of paragraph 4 of the plaint is admitted only to
the extent that the plaintiff is the brother of defendants and
the plaint B and C scheduled properties belonged to
[Link], the father of plaintiff and defendants and after
his death, the properties vested upon his legal heirs [Link]
being his wife and the plaintiff and defendants being his
children. It is also admitted by these defendants that the above
mentioned properties of [Link] was partitioned among
his legal heirs as per the partition deed bearing No: 1804/1989
of S.R.O Chathamangalam. It is also true that [Link]
who was an unmarried sister of the plaintiff and defendants is
no more.
4. The averment in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the properties
mentioned in plaint B and C schedule belongs to the plaintiff
and defendants and are in joint possession and enjoyment of
the same is wrong, contrary to the actual facts and thus denied
by these defendants.
5. These defendants most humbly submits that the plaintiff with
ulterior motive has not disclosed in his plaint the actual, true
and correct facts that the properties mentioned in the plaint B
and C schedule are solely belong to the 4th defendant in the
above matter.
2
6. As stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is false and
misleading to say that after the death of Smt. Narayani and
[Link], the properties mentioned in Plaint B and C
devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants. These defendants
most humbly submit that as per the registered Will bearing
No: 43/1997 of SRO Chathamangalam, [Link] bequeathed
the plaint C schedule property in favour of [Link] and
[Link] equally and thus, after the death of [Link],
the said property devolved upon [Link] and
[Link]. The registered Will bearing No: 43/1997 of
SRO Chathamangalam is producing herewith.
7. Later, as per the Will dated 15-06-2016, the 4th item and the
half of the share in the 7th item mentioned in the partition
deed bearing No: 1804/1989 of S.R.O Chathamangalam
which belongs to [Link] were bequeathed in favour of
[Link] and thus, after the death of [Link], her
sister [Link] became the sole owner of the entire
Plaint B and C schedule property. The Will executed by
[Link] dated 15-06-2016 is producing herewith.
8. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is well aware of the Will
executed by his mother and also the Will executed by his
sister, [Link] and thus the entire averments regarding
his 1/5th right over the B and C schedule properties in the
plaint were purposefully stated by the plaintiff to mislead this
Hon’ble Court from the actual, true and correct facts.
9. The averment in paragraph No:7 of the plaint that the
defendants without the concurrence of plaintiff had entered
in to a sale agreement for mortgage with third parties and had
received huge amount, fastening the liability on the plaint B
schedule property is false and denied by these defendants.
The averment in paragraph No:8 that none others other than
the plaintiff and defendants have any right of title or interest
over the plaint B and C schedule property is not correct. In
fact, the defendant No: 4, [Link] is the sole owner of
the plaint B and C schedule properties.
[Link] averment in paragraph No: 9 of the plaint that the
plaintiff requested and demanded the defendants in person to
effect partition to enable to have his due share separately and
that the defendants with ulterior motives and to have a
bargain with the properties refused the request of the plaintiff
to effect partition of the plaint B and C etc. are all false and
denied by these defendants. Further averment that the
defendants cut and removed a teak tree worth Rs.50,000,/-
from the plaint schedule properties is wrong. Actually, the
said teak tree was sold by [Link] during her life time.
[Link] cause of action as shown in the plaint is false hence the
suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. The
suit has not been valued properly as to the court fees for the
3
purpose of present proceedings and therefore the same is
liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of
the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
[Link] it is most humbly submitted by these defendants that
the plaintiff deliberately made false and frivolous averments
in the plaint in order to drag these defendants to unwanted
litigations and solely for the purpose of causing difficulty and
harassment to these defendants. Thus, these defendants
strongly opposes the claims of the plaintiff since, those are
either false or vexatious to the complete knowledge of the
plaintiff and the present suit was instituted to cause
unnecessary hardships to these defendants and is a glaring
case of abuse of process of the Hon’ble court.
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the suit filed without any bonafides by the
plaintiff, along with costs and compensatory costs to these
defendants.
Dated this the day of July, 2019
Defendant No: 2
Defendant No: 3
Defendant No: 4
VERIFICATION
We, (1) Soumini D/[Link] Malu, aged 74 years (2) Kamala
D/[Link] Malu, aged 64 years and (3) Kousalya, D/[Link] Malu,
aged 59years, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the facts
stated in the above written statement are true and correct to the best
of our information, knowledge and belief.
Dated this the day of July, 2019
Defendant No: 2
Defendant No: 3
Defendant No: 4
4
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
[Link] Date Description Purpose of
Production
1 19-08-1997 Registered Will bearing To prove the
No:43/1997 executed by case of the
[Link] defendants
No:2,3 and 4
2. 15-06-2016 Will executed by
[Link] -do-
Dated this the day of July, 2019
Advocate
