1
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION
JUDGE AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.3439/2022
Between:
Smt. Prathima. K : Plaintiffs
And:
Sri. P.D. Narayanappa : Defendant
WRITTEN STATEMENT
UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 & 2 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
The Defendant above named humbly begs to file the written
statement in the above case as follows:
1. At the outset the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is not
maintainable either in law on or facts, which is devoid of merits
and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
2. The averments made in para-1 of the plaint with regard to
the addresses of the parties are substantially correct.
3. The averments made in para-2 of the plaint that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.98/4,
situated at Panathur Village Varthur Hobil, Bengalur East Taluk,
measuring East to West by 78 feet and North to South by 43 feet
and that the said property is more fully described in the schedule
below and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule Property is
hereby specifically denied as false and the plaintiff have to put to
strict proof of the same.
4. The averments made in para-3 of the plaint that the
Schedule Property was acquired by the Plaintill by way of
registered partition deed dated 01.04.2017, bearing registration
number SHV-1-00014- 2017-18, Book 1, CD No. SHVD247,
before the office of Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, is
hereby specifically denied as false.
2
5. The averments made in para-4 of the plaint that the in
pursuance of the said partition deed dated 01.04.2017, for the
purposes of assessment of taxes, the khatha in respect of the
Schedule Property was made out in the name of the Plaintiff and
that the Original Form-B property register extract issued by
BBMP in relation to the Schedule Property in favour of the
Plaintiff and the Document produced by the plaintiffs will not
come into the aid of their false claim.
6. The averments made in para-5 of the plaint that the Since
the acquisition of the Schedule Property, the Plaintiff is regular
in the matter payment of taxes to the assessment authority i.e.,
the BBMP and that the latest tax paid receipt signifying the
payment of taxes for the year 2022-23 in relation to the Schedule
Property are hereby denied as false.
7. The averments made in para-6 of the plaint that the
plaintiff has also availed electricity connection for the purpose of
dwelling in the Schedule Property from BESCOM and that at the
stage of putting up construction on the Schedule Property itself,
the Plaintiff applied for temporary electricity meter and to further
substantiate the possession of the Plaintiff over the Schedule
Property and the Document produced by the plaintiffs will not
come into the aid of their false claim.
8. The averments made in para-7 of the plaint that the
plaintiff has put up residential house upon a portion of the
Schedule Property which measures East to West by 40 feet and
North to South by 43 feet and that after construction of the house
on the Schedule Property, the Plaintiff is still remaining with a
portion of 30 feet by 43 feet towards the Eastern side and that as
3
it can be seen at the partition deed dated 01.04.2017 which is
produced above at Document No.1, the Defendant is the owner
of a property measuring 60 feet by 48 feet which is abutting the
western direction of the Schedule Property and that the
Defendant intended to put up a residential construction on the
said property belonging to him and that the said background, the
Defendant approached the Plaintiff and requested her to
temporarily provide the above mentioned vacant portion of the
Schedule Property measuring 40 feet by 43 feet for the purpose
of storing construction materials are all hereby specifically
denied as false.
9. The averments made in para-8 of the plaint that the
plaintiff considering the plight of the Defendant and also as a
good gesture accepted his request and permitted the Defendant to
use the said vacant portion for the storing construction materials
and that the Defendant utilised the aid vacant portion of the
Schedule Property to store the construction materials and
completed the construction activity are all hereby specifically
denied as false.
10. The averments made in para-9 of the plaint that the after
the completion of the said construction, on 23.05.2022, the
Plaintiff in exercise of her ownership over the Schedule Property,
sought to put up a compound wall around the said vacant portion
of the Schedule Property and that the Defendant at that time,
forcefully attempted to resist the said construction of a wall
around the Schedule Property by unlawful means are all hereby
denied as false the plaintiff have to put to strict proof of the
same.
4
11. The averments made in para-10 of the plaint that the
Defendant along with his henchmen consisting of antisocial
elements having no right or interest or share in relation to the
Schedule Property committed an act of trespass and unlawfully
attempted to stop the construction citing reason that the same is
required to park his cars and that the Plaintiff drew the attention
of the Defendant that he has no manner of right or interest in so
far as the Schedule Property is concerned, the Defendant chose
to ignore the words of the Plaintiff and unlawfully attempted to
stop the construction of the Plaintiff over the Schedule Property
which clearly belongs to her and that due to the timely help and
assistance of the well-wishers, the illegal attempt on the part of
the Defendant was thwarted are all hereby denied as false.
12. The averments made in para-11 of the plaint that the
Defendant is privy to man power, money power and muscle
power having affinity to high profile political party and that the
Defendant was accompanied by his henchmen, who categorically
threatened the Plaintiff who is a widow, with dire consequences
in the event the Plaintiff failed to succumb to their dicta and that
the Plaintiff being a Law abiding citizen did not want to give any
further stimulus as such and only due to the timely help and
assistance of the well-wishers the Defendant and his henchmen's
attempt to interfere with the possession of the Schedule Property
was thwarted are all hereby denied as false and the plaintiff have
to put to strict proof of the same
13. The averments made in para-12 of the plaint that the
Plaintiff after due enquiry has understood that the Defendant
unlawfully intends to use the said vacant portion of the Schedule
Property to park his and his tenants' cars and with the said
5
intension, the Defendant is attempting to encroach the said
vacant portion of the schedule property and that the said actions
of the defendant are illegal and unpardonable are all hereby
denied as false.
14. The averments made in para-13 of the plaint that the
plaintiff is a helpless widow submits that she was shocked and
disturbed by the turn of events and that, to seek immediate
protection from the illegalities of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
approached the jurisdictional Marathalli Police Station and filed
a complaint seeking their intervention against the Defendant and
his entourage against the above mentioned illegal acts and that
the Jurisdictional Police refused even to register an FIR and
merely provided an endorsement stating that the said matter is
civil in nature and the same maybe resolved before the civil court
are hereby denied as false.
15. The averments made in Para – 14 of the Plaint that, It is
relevant to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the
Plaintiff is privy to a good subsisting title in relation to the
Schedule Property and there has been no act of Law in any
manner which has proposed to frustrate the Plaintiff from
exercising unimpeachable rights over the Schedule Property and
that the Jurisdictional Police without application of the fact that
they are duty bound to give necessary protection to every man's
life and property as per Law, failed to appreciate the Plaintiff's
complaint are hereby denied as false.
16. The averments made in para – 15 of the plaint that the
plaintiff submit that there is no impediment or dispute with
regard to measurement/ boundaries with respect to the schedule
6
property but the Defendant proposes to frustrate the Plaintiff for
no reason whatsoever and that the Defendant is an utter stranger
who has no manner of right or share or interest over the Schedule
Property ant that the Plaintiff is in lawful possession of the
Schedule Property are hereby denied as false, false and the
plaintiff have to put to strict proof of the same
17. The averments made in Para – 16 f the Plaint that the
plaintiff is in settled possession of the Schedule Property and that
the Defendant has no manner of right, title or interest to
dispossess the Plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Property or any
portion of the same are hereby denied as false and the Plaintiff
has to put to strict proof the same.
18. The averments made in Para – 17 of the Plaint that from
the turn of events, it is clear that the Defendant is hell bent upon
encroaching the said vacant portion of the Schedule Property
from the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff submits that it is made
clear that the jurisdictional police shall not accord any protection
to the Plaintiff in protecting its lawful possession over the same
and that the Defendant is a powerful person in the locality,
having the backing of both political power as well as financial
power. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff who is an helpless
widow is highly vulnerable to the illegal acts of the Defendant
are all hereby denied as false.
19. The averments made in Para – 18 of the Plaint that there is
no cause of action for filing of the above suit at any point of
time, much less on the dates nor any such incidents have been
taken place as contended by the plaintiffs at para-18 of the plaint
and hence all the allegations made in para-18 are hereby denied
7
as false and the plaintiffs have to put to strict proof of the same.
The plaintiffs have set up imaginary, illusionary and fictitious
cause of action to suit their convenience and thus the plaint is
liable to be rejected.
20. It is respectfully submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is
also barred by law and the plaintiff are not entitled for any of the
relief/s as prayed for by them.
21. It is respectfully submitted that the plaintiff have
suppressed the true and material facts and have approached this
Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and thus the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
22. The plaintiff have not produced any material proof or
documents to substantiate their false claim and the plaintiff are
put to strict proof each and every allegations made by them.
23. The Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not sufficient. The
plaintiffs have no valued the suit properly and they are liable to
pay the court fee on the market value as per section 35(1)
Karnataka Court Fee and suits valuation Act.
24 In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the
suit of the plaintiffs will not survive for consideration and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
25 The suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, and vexatious
and filed with misconception of law and facts and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
8
WHEREFORE, the Defendant above named humbly prays
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit filed
by the Plaintiff with an exemplary cost and to pass to such other
appropriate orders in favour of the defendant, in the interest of
justice.
Advocate for Defendant Defendant
VERIFICATION
I, the Defendant herein, do hereby verify and declare that
whatever stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Defendant
Place: Bangalore
Date:
9
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION
JUDGE AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.3439/2022
Between:
Smt. Prathima. K : Plaintiffs
And:
Sri. P.D. Narayanappa : Defendant
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, P.D. Narayanappa, S/o. Late Dadappa, aged about 59
years, R/a. Yallamma Devi Layout, Govt., School, Panathur,
Varthur Hobli, Bengalur East Taluk, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the defendant in the above case and I
know the facts of the case deposing hereto. Hence, I am
swearing to this affidavit.
2. I submit that the averments made in the written statement
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief.
Whatever stated above are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me
Deponent
Advocate
Place: Bangalore
Date:
10
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSION
JUDGE AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.3439/2022
Between:
Smt. Prathima. K : Plaintiffs
And:
Sri. P.D. Narayanappa : Defendant
MEMO
The defendant No. in the above case respectfully submits that the
this Hon’ble court may kindly be permitted her to adopt the
written statement of defendant as her statement of objections to
the injunction application field by the plaintiffs under order 39
rule 1 & 2 of CPC and the same may be taken on record, in the
interest of justice.
Advocate for Defendant Defendant
Place: Bangalore
Date: