Reply on Behalf of P to the Application of the Def. No.
1 under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC.
Preliminary Objections
1. That the present application is not maintainable in the present form.
2. That the present application is not maintainable as the Def. No. 1/applicant has suppressed
the relevant facts. She is guilty of suppression of true facts and has not come with clean hands
before this Hon'ble Court. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the applicant/Def. No. 1 has filed this false frivolous application deliberately which
has no meaning at all.
1. That the application lacks basic ingredients regarding Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, hence is
liable to be dismissed:
2. That the applicant has filed the instant application in just to harass and pressurise the
Res/P.
3. That the app. is baseless, false and frivolous has been filed malafidely, is liable to be
dismissed summarily.
4. That the present app. is not fulfilling the requirements of O 7 R 11 CPC, hence is
liable to be dismissed.
5. That the above said application is also against the law & facts/judgements of the
superior court's & needs to be dismissed & Res/P is entitled to cost & special cost.
6. That the applicant wants to linger the matter and as a result are wasting the precious
time of this Hon'ble court.
Reply Para wise
1. That the contents of Para No. 1 of this application are as alleged is wrong, hence
denied. It is ill-conceived and unfounded on facts. Though it is admitted fact that the
present suit has been filed by the Res/P on 2.7.2025 yet the other facts as alleged in
the manner is wrong and hence denied. On the other hand, it was submitted in detail.
The R/P is the absolute owner and in possession of the western part of the Industrial
plot bearing No. 322 measuring 644.44 Sq. yds (40' ✕145') situated in the Industrial
Area Sector-24, Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana, vide sale-deed bearing
document No. 14610 dt 24.2.1988 duly Registered in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Faridabad. The suit property is bounded as under:
a. ON EAST: Remaining portion of Plot No: 322
b. ON WEST: Plot No 321
c. ON NORTH: Plot No 335
d. ON SOUTH: 40 ft wide Road
2. It is further submitted that initially the entire industrial Plot bearing No. 322,
measuring 1288.88 Sq. yds is situated in Industrial Area Sector-24, Faridabad, District
Faridabad, Haryana, originally allotted to Sh Yashpaul Garg... late father of the
applicant/Def No. 1 and thereafter the conveyance deed got registered in the name of
Smt. Vimla Sood (wife late mother of the applicant/def no. 1) wide document No
14399 dt 11.2.1982 registered in the office of Sub-registrar-Ballabgarh. The parents of
the applicant/Def No 1 had sold the property to the father of the Res/P Late Sh B. P.
Dhanda on 11.4.1979 after receiving the full sale consideration amount of ₹23,000/-
wide CH No 398023 dt 11.4.1979 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Ballabgarh. Possession
was being handed over to him who was doing business over the suit property. The late
B. P. Dhanda and Late Yashpaul Sood were near relatives related to each other. The
suit property i.e western portion was purchased by the late father Sh B. P. Dhanda
who was the father and natural guardian of the Res/P. It was purchased and managed
by him in their name who was minor at that time i.e at the time of its purchase.
However at the time of Execution of Sale deed dt 24.2.1988 vide document no 14610
she was married. The Res/P is the only daughter of her parents. Her father Late Sh
B.P. Dhanda died on 19.1.2007 and her mother Smt Raj Khanna Dhanda expired on
23.12.2008. After the execution of the Conveyance deed in favour of the late mother
Smt Vimla Sood, she subsequently executed the Sale-deed in the name/favour of the
present Res/P.
3. That the contents of Para No 2 of the application as alleged is wrong hence denied.
The date of execution of the Conveyance deed dated 11.2.1982... as well as the
Sale-deed bearing document no 14610 dt 24.2.1988 in the name of the answering
Res/P records are admitted being matter of records. Rest of the para as alleged is
wrong, false hence denied. It is specifically denied that a sale-deed can not be
executed in favour of a minor as alleged. It is also specifically denied that if the sale
consideration paid by the late Sh B.P. Dhanda, then the Sale deed was to be executed
in his favour. On the other hand it submitted that the Answering Res/P is the only
child of her parents. Late Sh B.P. Dhanda was the father and legal/natural guardian of
the answering Res/P who was then a minor. Further, her father out of love and
affection had contributed & paid the sale-consideration on behalf of her daughter. He
was also entire supervising and managing the transaction being the immediate
guardian or parent.
It is trite law that a minor can be a transferee but not a transferor of an immovable
property. A property can be purchased in the name of a minor as the law does not
regard a minor as incapable for accepting a benefit.
There has been no provision under the T.P. Act which provides that any sale
transaction in favour of a minor was invalid rather there have been other various
provisions in the act which provide that an interest can be transferred even in favour
of an unborn child in womb.
Even if it is presumed that answering Res/P was minor at the time of purchase or at
the time of the registration of Sale Deed, it does not make the Sale Deed invalid. The
vendor was never challenged by the vendor/Smt. PPD or the person claiming through
said vendor. Now it can not be challenged by other joint-owner or transferee or person
claiming through them which is not permissible in law. It was never challenged for
the last more than 35 years and now the same can not be challenged under the garb of
filing the present application.
4. That the contents of Para No 3 of the application as alleged is wrong, false and hence
specifically denied. It is vehemently denied that the sale transaction which took place
on 11.4.1979 and the subsequent Sale deed executed in favour of the answering Res/P
vide sale deed no 14610 dated 24.2.1988 were never ever have been defective in any
manner. Rest of para as alleged is wrong, false hence denied. The answering Res/P is
absolute owner and in possession of the suit property since 11.4.1979 when it was
purchased by her father & sale deed in her name is out of love & affection by late Sh
B.P. Dhanda who was the father & legal/natural guardian.
5. That the contents of Para No 4 of the application as alleged is wrong, false and hence
denied. It is specifically denied that any unlawful or illegal action has ever happened
more than 40 years ago as alleged. So the questions of doing or making them
legal/due under the law does not arise at all. The property bearing no 322 Sec-24,
Faridabad was partitioned by the late mother & father of the applicant/def no 1 on
11.4.1979 & further at the time of handing the possession to late Sh B.P. Dhanda on
execution of sale-deed on 24.2.1988. There had been legal battle amongst the legal
heirs of Smt Vimla Sood after their death... before Hon'ble court of Delhi in respect of
the unregistered will left by late Smt Vimla Sood mother of the applicant/Def-1... Smt
Vimla Sood died on 10.2.1994 by leaving an unregistered Will. The applicant/Def no
1 has been wrongly, illegally & unlawfully claiming to be owner of the entire PLOT
NO 322 admeasuring 1288.88 Sq. yds, when she is well aware of the fact that her
mother had already sold the suit property i.e 644.44 Sq. yds to the plaintiff as per sale
deed mentioned above. The legal heir of Smt Vimla Sood have the right over the
remaining half portion towards eastern side admeasuring to 644.44 sq. yds only. The
western portion consisting of 644.44 sq. yds being enjoyed in peaceful, uninterrupted
& exclusive possession of the same for last 40 years and now same can not be
challenged under the garb of filing the present application. It is denied that the Res/P
has suppressed any material facts regarding the plaint of the suit property. The
answering Res/P was called by Sto Mujesan after registration of application vide no
1129/CC/E dt 24.2.2023 to record her statement. She came to know that applicant/Def
No 1, with illegal designs, unlawfully without any legal right, title or interest, wanted
to grab the suit property. Hence the present suit was filed against her... It is further
wrong hence denied that the plot can not be bifurcated or sub-divided as alleged, as in
no of cases when there has been no objection by the parties, the permission can be
granted for sub-division subject to permission from the higher authority on the
payment of requisite fee, so the content that plot can not be sub-divided as alleged is
wrong & denied. There is bar to sub-division/bifurcation of the plots as alleged is
wrong and hence denied.
6. That the contents of Para No 5 of the application as alleged is wrong hence denied. It
is wrong, false hence denied that there is no cause of action wrong, false & hence
denied. It is also wrong that court fees has not been paid whereas the answering Res/P
is prepared to submit the court fee if directed by the Hon'ble Court. And it is
absolutely wrong that the answering Res/P has no possession over the suit property.
7. That the contents of Para No 6 i.e. prayer para is wrong, false hence denied. It is
prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed with costs.