IN THE COURT OF 2nd Addition Munsiff JAMMU

(i) Tarsaim Lal age 52 years

(ii) Anand Lal

(iii) Ravi Kumar, sons of Koushlya Devi and Mohan Lal residents of Gujral Tehsil Jammu West District
Jammu

(iv) Dewayan Kumari d/o Late Shiv Ram w/o Rattan Lal r/o Pathankot, Punjab

(Plaintiffs)

V/S

(i) Ram Lal

(ii) Sham Lal both sons of Late Sh Shiv Ram

(iii) Kamal Kumar s/o Sh Ram Lal

(iv) Jeet Raj s/o Sham Lal, all residents of village Gujral Tehsil Jammu West District Jammu

(Defendants)

In the matter of: Civil Suit for declaration that plaintiffs are the joint owners and in joint possession of
the sham lat land comprising No Khasra 197 and 197 min measuring 19 Kanal and 1 Kanal respectively
situated at village Patoli Mangotrian Tehsil and District Jammu and with a consequential relief of
permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction or
change the nature of the sham lat land stated above through themselves or through their agents
attorney holder etc in any manner.

Preliminary Objections:-

1. That the suit in the present form is not maintainable and thus is liable to be rejected at the
onset.

2. The suit is barred by the law of limitation and thus is liable to be dismissed in lemini.

3. That the present Suit is also bad for non disclosure of material facts.
4. The suit is barred under order 2 rule 2 in as much as the plaintiff and predecessors of the
plaintiffs in as much as they have already filed property related cases against the defendants in
the year 2017 and have deliberately did not claimed any relief with respect to the suit property.

5. The suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fee and suit is liable to
be rejected under the Order 7 provision 11 CPC itself.

6. That the suit is bad for want of cause of action therefore is liable to be dismissed along with
cost.

7. That the plaintiffs are neither the owner nor is in the possession of the suit land therefore the
plaintiffs have no locus standi and thus also are not entitled for any of the reliefs. The plaintiffs
and their predecessor in interest have already liquidated their share in the suit property by way
of sale deed and relinquishment deed, they have no right, title or interest in the suit property,
the suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.

8. That in light of well established principle of law which goes to say that “he who seeks equity has
to do equity” the present plaint needs to be dismissed as the conduct of Plaintiffs is just not in
accordance of equity but is contrary to the principles of equity and hence the present plaint
needs an outright rejection.

9. That the plaintiffs cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. That the Plaintiff has taken
the financial assistance from time to time from the father of the defendants during his life time
and even from the defendants and renounced her share in the suit property in favour of the
defendants, and for that the plaintiffs and their predecessor have sworned the affidavit in the
year 1996 and also relinquished the same vide relinquishment deed impugned in the suit. The
relinquishment deed challenged in the suit bears the testimony of conclusiveness of the
deed/transaction and therefore the plaintiffs are bound by the same.

10. That with the altered position due to the relinquishment deed the defendants sold a portion of
the relinquished land in the year 2015. The predecessor of plaintiffs has executed the
relinquishment deed with her full understanding, free will and knowledge. The defendants
 invested huge money in the suit land pursuant to the relinquishment deed openly and to the
knowledge of the plaintiff and the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are thus estoped
from disputing the said relinquishment deed.

11. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit with dishonest and malafide intent
to extort monies from the Defendant by concocting a patently false and motivated case.

Preliminary Submissions.

1. That the predecessor in interest of parties Sh. Dharam Chand i.e. the grandfather of the
Plaintiff no. 1, answering defendants and the maternal fore grandfather of the plaintiff nos. 2, 3,
and 4 - have three sons namely i.e. (i) Late Sh. Shiv Ram (ii) Sh. Sh. Mohan Lal and (iii) Late Sh.
Suminder Lal. Therefore the 12 marals of suit land falling under khasra no. 196 min was divided
into three brothers and thus only 4 marlas of said land fell into the share of Late Shiv Ram (Copy
of Jamabandhi kharif 1959 and Rabi 1960 is enclosed as Annexure-I) i.e. the predecessor in
interest of the parties and on that 4 marals of land of Sh. Shiv Ram a temple has been
constructed. Therefore there is no land left in khasara no. 196 to maintain any claim by any of
the party. The plaintiffs have malafidely concealed this fact and thus have not come with the
clean hand. The plaintiffs therefore are not entitled for any relief.
2. Further, the plaintiffs have concealed the facts with respect to khasra no. 197 (10 kanal
15 marlas). In this khasra no. the land measuring 4 marlas was already sold by the predecessors
in interest thereby reduced to 10 kanals 11 marlas. There were 7 shareholder in the said land
including the plaintiff No. 1 and mother of Plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and the defendants being the
legal heirs of late Sh. Shiv Ram. Out of this 10 kanal 11 marlas; 14 ½ marlas of land is under the
road constructed by the PWD and further 15 ½ marlas of the land is used for persons
pathway/road for the purpose of egress and ingress by the parties, since time immemorial—
thus the land is reduced to 9 kanals 1 marla. In the said remaining 9 kanals 1 marla the plaintiff
no.1 has already sold 1 kanal 10 marals of land for the said khasra no. being 197, much more
than her share and thus left with no land in khasra No 197. Even the predecessor in interest /the
mother of the plaintiffs no 2, 3 and 4 has also relinquished her share in by way of registered
relinquishment deed dated ___________, in favour of the defendants and thus she had also
exhausted her share and therefore is left with no right claim any relief from the khasra no 197,
also.
3. That the answering defendants, the plaintiff no. 1 and mother of Plaintiffs no. 2, 3 and 4
(Late Smt. Koushalaya Devi), Mrs Sureshta Devi, and Neelma Kumari are real brothers and
sisters. All of them are married and have settled with their families.
4. The plaintiff no. 1 and the mother of the Plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 have married in early
Eighties and Seventies respectively and since their marriages they have been residing in their
matrimonial homes.
5. That during the life time of hers father Sh. Shiv Ram the plaintiff negotiated with him
and took financial aid from the defendants, and in lieu of that the Plaintiff No. 1 and the mother
of the plaintiff no 2, 3 and 4 have released her share in the property, in favour of the answering
defendants and the same is evident from the affirmation made on affidavit duly sworned by the
plaintiff and duly authenticated/ attested by the Learned Sub-Judge, Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Jammu, 1st Oct. 1996. It is submitted that they had sworned before the Learned
magistrate, Jammu, to the effect that they don’t want any share from the property of their
father and that they had no objection if the father of the plaintiffs gives the property to his
sons/the defendants herein. They have further sworned that they have no concern with the
property of their father.
6. It is submitted that ever since and more particularly after 1996, the answering
defendant alone remained in the exclusive possession and user of the entire landed property of
their father Sh. Shiv Ram and have invested a huge amount of money in developing the entire
land including the suit land. Not only that, the defendants Gopal Dass and Sham Lal even the
Plaintiff no. 1 has sold her share of the land and the predecessor in interest the mother of
Plaintiff No 2, 3 and 4 had relinquished her share in favour of the defendants and the same was
never objected by the them as they had already renounced/exhausted their share in the land.
7. That the father of the Plaintiff no. 1 and maternal grandfather of Plaintiff nos. 2, 3 & 4,
Shiv Ram expired in the year 2009 and the answering defendants only remained in the exclusive
possession and user of the suit property and since the name of the plaintiff has also entered in
the inheritance mutation, therefore the plaintiff and other sisters herself proposed to execute
the relinquishment deeds relinquishing their respective shares of their father’s property in
favour of the defendants.
8. That after execution of the relinquishment deeds by the sisters including the Plaintiff the
answering defendants invested a huge amount of money to the tune of rupees ten lacs in
developing the land.
9. That without forgoing and subject to the submissions made in the preliminary
objections and submissions the answering defendant makes the following submissions and
craves leave of the Learned Court to read the same as part and parcel to the parawise reply as
the same are not reproduced for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity.

(Preliminary Submission Office)

1.That, the suit land being khasra No 197 situated at Village Patoli Mangotrian, Tehsil Jammu is
the Shamlat land in the nature of Gairmumkin Choi therefore the present suit is not
maintainable for cause of jurisdiction and hence the suit is liable to dismiss.
2. That, non of the plaintiffs has any right, title or interest in the suit land therefore, the suit is
not maintainable for cause of action.
3. That, the suit land is neither the joint family property neither the ancestors property the
plaintiffs have no right in the suit land as such the suit land is liable to be dismiss.
4. That, the suit is bad for non joinder necessary parties and has been filled specifically harass
the defendant only. Whereas the other brother of the defendant have not been made party.
The suit has been filled to misuse the judication
Of LD. Court to harass the defendant that the defendant and other brothers of the defendant
have already raised the construction in some portion of the suit land under their possession.
5. That, the defendant in their personal capacity have earned the ownership of 11 marls bearing
khasra No. 197 of the suit land by the way of adverse possession against the erstwhile
Owners U/S 19(e Agrarian Reforms Act) 1976 vide decession dated 04/02/2013 of the court of
Assistant Settlement Officer Collector Agrarian Reforms Jammu and rest of the position is also
under the settled possession of the answering defendant Since about 60-65 years ago and the
answering defendant and their other brothers have raised the construction (Paka Shad the
handmade sketch of the construction raised by the answering defendant and other holders is
annexed here as with D2) along side the road there is also a Shiv-Mandir and a Govt. Boys
School being constructed on the suit land the plaintiffs have no right what so ever in the suit
land, the suit of the plaintiffs is grossly misconceive therefore is liable to be dismiss. The copy of
decision dated 04/02/2013 the Assistant Settlement Officer Collector Agrarian Reforms Jammu
is annexed here with as annexure D1.
6. The answering defendant unless expressively admits denied each and every content of the
plaint and craves the leaf of the LD. Court to read the aforstated preliminary objections and
submission as part and parcel of para wise reply to the plaint the para wise reply are submitted
as under.

Para wise reply:-

1. The contents of para 1 under reply are false misconceive and misrepresented hence
denied vehemently. The plaintiff are neither the owners nor the joint owners and also
nor the shareholders in land compressing Khasra No. 174,175,176,197 and 197 min
situated at Patoli Mangotrian, Tehsil Jammu.
2. The contents of para 2 are false misconceive and misrepresented hence denied
category.
3. The contents of para 3 and 4 under reply irrelevant with respect to the suit land
moreover the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest have already relinquished
their share in the other land in favour of the answering defendant and other brothers of
the answering defendant. The plaintiffs have no right title in the suit land the suit file
before the court of LD 2nd Additional Munsiff Jammu bars the present suit of the under
order to rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Court.
4. The contents of para 5 under reply are grossly misconceive and misrepresentative the
plaintiffs have no right in land comprising khasra No. 197 min as the same is Shamlat
land and answering defendant have obtained the ownership and right of settled
possession in their individual capacity and have already raised the construction as said
land the khasra girdawari refers to in the para under reply are no avail for the purpose
of suit.
5. The contents of para 6,7,8 and 9 grossly misconceive and misrepresentative the plaintiff
have no right title or interest in the suit land moreover the suit land is neither ancestor
or the joint property of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant have earned the
ownership and as well as in settled possession of the suit land in their individual rights
since last more than 4 to 5 decades. The answering defendant has constructed Shad the
 plaintiff have no reason or cause to object with respect to the user or enjoyment of the
suit land of the answering defendant.
6. The contents of para 10 under reply it is stated that the plaintiff neither have any right,
title or interest and not have any cause of action accrued to them to file the present suit
the suit being without any cause of action is liable to be dismiss the plaintiff have no
locus stand to maintain the present suit.
7. The contents of para 11 it is submitted that the subject matter of the suit being the
Shamlat land exclusively governed by the revenue law’s under the jurisdiction of
revenue court therefore the LD. Court lacs the jurisdiction to entertained the present
suit and suit is liable to be dismiss.
8. The contents of para 12 is is submitted that the suit is not proper valued and neither the
proper court for has been paid hence the suit is liable to dismiss.
9. The suit is not a composite with the duplicate copy of the plaint and neither the affidavit
is annexed .

Prayer:- It is therefore most respectfully pray that the suit has been dismissed with
heavy cost.