IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION KANPUR NAGAR
O.S. No…………………………. of 2019
Hemant Pat Singhania, adult-aged about 89 Year, son of Late Sh. Radha
Kishan Singhania resident of 84/43 Radha Kunj, Kalpi Road, Kanpur
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 20812 …….PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. Dwarkadish Temple Trust, having its registered office at Kamla
Tower Dwarkadish Road Kanpur Nagar through Yadupati
Singhania S/o late Sh. Gaur Hari Singhania.
2. VVS Concast Ltd, having its registered office at 128/119-A, Block
K, Kidwai Nagar Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-_________ through its
director Shri Gajanand Agarwal
3. Shri. Gajanand Agarwal R/o 128/119-A, Block K, Kidwai Nagar
Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-____________
…..DEFENDANTS.
Valuation:
Court Fee Paid:
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Plaintiff named above humbly begs to submit as hereunder:
1. That Plaintiff is a Peace loving, God fearing and law-abiding
Citizen who hails from the renowned and respectable family of
this metropolis.
2. That Plaintiff’s father was Late. Shri Radha Kishan Singhania
who had breathed his last on 20.09.1973. at Kanpur.
3. That Plaintiff is the only son and heir/successor of his father
late Radha Kishan Singhania.
4. That Plaintiff’s father, amongst other, owned and possessed
certain self-earned immovable properties in his own name
being the premises no 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 situated at Tilak
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh).
5. That Plaintiff is holding and owning aforesaid properties of his
father following the inheritance which took place in his favor
upon the death of his father Shri Radha Kishan Singhania in
an unbroken continuity without any interference by anybody.
6. That after the death of his father Plaintiff applied for the
mutation in relevant records of Kanpur Development Authority
i.e. Successor of Cawnpore Improvement Trust, but
unfortunately could not succeed since he was not able to
grease palms of the Authority.
7. That Plaintiff’s father during his lifetime and out of his
generosity, had orally permitted his immovable properties
aforesaid to be used by the Defendant No.1 for a limited
purpose to rent out the bungalows situated on the premises,
provided that the rent accruing from the rented bungalows
would be used for the purposes of managing the temple and for
carrying out other religious activities related to temple.
8. That, as such Defendant No.1 was and, is the mere custodian
of said properties without having any power or authority of
transferring and/or alienating them in any manner
whatsoever.
9. That the Defendant No.1 was created mainly to manage the
Dwarkadish Temple situate at Kamla Tower Dwarkadish Road
Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) properly and smoothly.
[Link], in the passage of time, the Defendant No.1 without any
right or authority and, with an ulterior motive, surreptitiously
moved and got its name muted in revenue records regards
aforesaid properties of the plaintiff, previously owned by his
late father.
[Link] mere mutation, if any, procured by Defendant No.1 in its
favor, in the absence of a foundation of title over the property
and, on the basis of frauds and misrepresentation, in respect
of plaintiff's property bearing the premises no. 7/97, Tilak
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (U.P), has no presumptive value on the
title of the property.
[Link] if the Plaintiff’s father Late Radha Kishan Singhania
intention was to transfer the said property to the Dwarkadhish
Temple or the trust managing it, he would have applied to the
respective authorities for transfer of the same to the temple
and/or trust, which never happened.
[Link] the Defendant No.1, however in an illusionary manner
started treating aforesaid properties as its own merely on the
strength of procured and unlawful mutation aforesaid. Such
has been their disregard that the Defendant No.1 has even
gone to the extent of selling and transferring one of the
properties aforesaid bearing the premises no.7/97, Tilak
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (U.P) in favor of defendant no 2 vide the
registered sale deed dated 27.12.2001 duly executed by
Defendant No.1 through its Managing Trustees Dr. Gaur Hari
Singhania in favour of defendant no 2 registered as Bahi
No………….Volume No…….at pages…..to…….at Serial No…….
in the office of Sub-registrar Zone……. Kanpur Nagar,
on……….
[Link] for a proper and complete appreciation of the matter, the
factual relevant background of the controversy is as below:
1. That in the year 1927, the father of the Plaintiff Late Sh.
Radha Kishan Singhania purchased and acquired a piece
of land admeasuring of 3 Acres comprising of certain Plot
Nos. 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 (old Plot Nos. 14,15 and 15-A),
situated at Khalasi Lines, Cawnpore (Kanpur) Uttar
Pradesh, from the Cawnpore Improvement trust vide sale
deed dated 05.12.1927.
2. Similarly, another piece of land admeasuring the area of
about 3.48 Acre in the vicinity of above said the land was
purchased by late Lala Kamla Pat Singhania bearing the
Plot No 11, 11A 12 and 13 situated at the then Khalasi
Line vide the registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1927. Said
late Lala Kamla Pat Singhania is the elder brother of
Plaintiff’s father;
3. After the death of Plaintiff's father and his elder brother
aforesaid the immovable properties mentioned above
were held and owned by respective legal heirs and
successors of Plaintiff’s father and of his elder brother in
the normal manner;
4. Pertinently, elder brother of plaintiff’s father had been the
Manager of Dwarkadish Temple aforesaid and he
purchased said Plot Nos. 11,11A 12 and 13 in his
capacity as Manager of Temple. On the other hand
Plaintiff’s father purchased his said Plot Nos.14,15 and
15A [now, the premises, bearing the no. 7/97, 7/96 and
7/95 situate at Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar
Pradesh] and developed them in his individual capacity
and, in furtherance thereto plaintiff’s father permitted his
said personal property bearing no. 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95
to be used and utilized by temple which the Defendant
No.1 not claims that it manages, for limited purpose of
renting out the bungalows situated at the property and
using the accruing rent for the purposes of carrying out
religious affairs of the temple only, without intending to
give any power or authority of transferring or selling it in
any manner;
5. Plaintiff after the death of his father being his only son
and the legal heir/successor, stepping into his shoes,
acquired an entire right, title, and interests of above-
mentioned property in his favor by way of inheritance.
6. As such except what has been stated in preceding
paragraphs, the Plaintiff is holding and owning aforesaid
properties in his own vested rights and entitlement
without any interference by anybody.
7. That on 19.06.2017 the Plaintiff’s son wrote a letter to
Sh. Yadupati Singhania stating that it was brought to his
attention that the property bearing number 14, 15, 15 A
(New properties number 7/97, 7/96, 7/95) was being
sold which was given to the Defendant No.1 only for the
purposes of managing the temple and for carrying out
other religious activities related to temple.
8. Thereafter on 05.07.2017 it was informed to the son of
Plaintiff that the properties bearing number 14, 15 and
15A purchased by the Late Sh, Radha Kishan Singhania
stands mutated in the of the Defendant No.1 in the
records of Kanpur development authority and Kanpur
Nagar Nigam.
9. That again in month of October 2017 Plaintiff came to
know about wrongdoings and misdeeds of Defendant
No.1 when the Defendant No.1 was planning to sell
plaintiff's aforesaid property which is in the rightful
ownership of the Plaintiff.
10. That on 16.10.2017, 16.11.2017 plaintiff made
complaints before the learned Commissioner regarding
wrongful mutation somehow obtained by Defendant No.1.
Regretfully no action was taken upon the Plaintiff's
complaint.
11. That being aggrieved by the inaction of the City
Commissioner with regard to complete lack of procedure
followed in mutation records of the concerned property
that on 07.02.2018 the Plaintiff was opted to file a Writ
Petition No (C) No-5851 of 2018 title as "Hemantpant
Singhania Vs. State of U.P. & Ors” before the Hon’ble
High Court of ALLAHABAD.
12. That the said Writ Petition came up for hearing before
the Hon’ble Court on 19.02.2018. However, the same was
dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that
the aggrieved party may have an appropriate remedy in
civil law.
13. Subsequently, the Plaintiff had filed two (2) Right to
Information (RTI) Applications dated 14.05.2018 before
the Kanpur Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development
Authority enquiring as to the mutation records of the
properties bearing numbers 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 (old
Plot Nos.14, 15 and 15-A) of Khalasi Lines, Kanpur
Nagar.
14. That the Kanpur Nagar Nigam replied to the RTI
Application on 18.08.2018 stating that as of the
computer records in the year 2008 plots No. 7/95 and
7/96 are in the name the Defendant Trust and plot No.
7/97 is in the name of the Defendant Trust, Hema
Agrawal, and Jyothi Agrawal.
15. That upon further search and inquiries it was revealed
to plaintiff that Defendant No.1, vide the registered sale
deed dated 27.12.2001 aforesaid, had sold plaintiff's
property bearing the premises no 7/97, Tilak Nagar,
Kanpur Nagar (U.P) in favor of defendant no 2 illegally
and unauthorizedly.
16. That Defendant No.1 in its aggrandizement are looking
to construct on and seek to transfer and alienate the
remaining property of the Plaintiff.
17. That entire act and conduct of Defendant No.1 is wholly
bad and illegal and is aimed at converting the plaintiff's
property in its own use and benefit without having any
right or authority for the same.
18. That Defendant No.1 never had or has an entitlement of
constructing on the said property without the
authorization of the Plaintiff and/or to dispose of the
plaintiff's property according to its own choice. As already
submitted hereinabove, Defendant No.1 does not have
any ownership rights or domain over the property.
19. That, in all events, sale deed aforesaid made by
Defendant No.1 in favor of defendant no 2 is absolute
without any authority, illegal and the property so sold
cannot be said and/ or claimed to have been passed in
favor transferee/defendant No 2 Accordingly the said sale
deed dated 27.12.2001 is the document non est in the
eye of law.
20. That Plaintiff discussed the matter with defendants and
apprised them with real situation of the matter and
thereby requested not to deal further with plaintiff's
properties along with the property sold under
unauthorized and unlawful sale deed 27.12.2001 but
defendants did not accede to plaintiff's request and on
the contrary threatened that since the property had been
transferred to defendant no 2 by Defendant No.1 quite
properly under the duly registered sale deed, therefore,
they along with other properties of plaintiff which had
been given to Defendant No.1 is entitled to deal with the
same according to their own choice and wish and any
interference by plaintiff is highly improper and
unwarranted and dispute, if any, could only be settled,
according to law, through intervention of competent court
and, not by any other means.
21. That, as such Defendant no 1 has no right or authority
to further deal with plaintiff's property in any manner
whatsoever since no right had or has passed in their
favor under the said sale deed dated 27.12.2001 and
entire right, title and interest of the said property still
remains with plaintiff alone. Further, Defendant No.1 is
not entitled to deal with the remaining aforesaid
properties of the plaintiff for the purpose of selling and
transferring them.
22. That in these circumstance plaintiffs has been left with
no option except to seek asylum under this Hon'ble Court
as the Defendants are not amenable to genuine and
lawful requests of the plaintiff. Hence this suit.
23. That plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as sought herein in
his favor and against defendants and, in case, the reliefs,
as sought herein are not granted then in that event
plaintiff would suffer so irreparably which cannot be
compensated in term of money.
24. That, except this suit, the plaintiff has no other equally
efficacious remedy.
25. That plaintiff has a strong, matchless and prima facie,
case in his favor and against defendants for an award of
relief claimed herein.
26. That Plaintiff herein further crave leave of this Ld. Court
to file an appropriate legal proceeding in appropriate
Court in respect of Property bearing 7/95 and 7/96,
situated at Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
27. That the cause of action for this suit initially arose
when plaintiff's father breathed his last on 20.09.1973
Thereafter, it arose in the month of October 2017 when
plaintiff came to know about aforesaid ill intentions of
defendants. Thereafter, it arose on 19.02.2018 when the
Plaintiff approached Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad by
way of writ petition Writ C 5851 / 2018 against inaction
on the part of learned Commissioner upon plaintiff's
aforesaid complaints regarding plaintiff's mutation and
the wrongful mutation obtained and misdeeds of
executing unauthorized sale deed of plaintiff's property
brought about by Defendant No.1 whereupon Hon'ble
High Court observed to have the appropriate remedy in
Civil Law Cause of action finally arose…..when
defendants refused to accede with lawful and genuine
requests of plaintiff as narrated in the preceding
paragraph no.21 herein. Cause of action is recurring
each day thereafter it finally arose.
28. That for the purpose of valuation and payment of court
fee this suit is valued at Rs______________________and the
total payable maximum court fee of Rs.________/-
(Rupees_____/- on relief of declaration and Rupees_____/-
on relief of Permanent Injunction) has been paid by
plaintiff.
29. That parties herein situate and carries on their
respective business here in this town at Kanpur Nagar,
therefore, this Hon'ble Court has full, pecuniary and
territorial, jurisdiction to try and dispose of this suit, on
merit, according to Law.
RELIEFS’ CLAIMED
Plaintiff, therefore, most respectfully claims following reliefs, in
the interest of justice;
a) Pass a decree for declaration declaring the sale deed executed in
favor of the Defendants in respect of property bearing No. 7/97
Tilak Nagar, Kanpur dated 27.12.2001 registered in Sub-
Registrar Office at Zone No. IInd. Kanpur Nagar as illegal, null
and void ab-intio having no legal effect.
b) The Decree of Declaration may kindly be passed in favor of
plaintiff and against defendant declaring that plaintiff is the
owner and holder of above-mentioned properties left by his
father late Radha Kishan Singhania regardless of unauthorized
and unlawful sale deed dated 27.12.2001 made by Defendant
No.1 in favor of defendant no 2 which is the documents non est
in the eye of Law.
(B). The Decree of Permanent Injunction may kindly be passed In
favor of plaintiff and against defendants suitably restraining
the defendants their agents/attorneys/ representatives etc.,
from further constructing on the said property and/or
selling, conveying or alienating aforesaid properties in any
made of manner.
(C). Any other Order or Direction, ancillary/interim and/or final,
as deemed fit and proper in favor of plaintiff and against the
defendant may also kindly be granted by this Hon'ble
Court.
(D). Cost of the suit may kindly be granted in favor of plaintiff
and against defendants.
