IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLE O.S.

NO: 46/2012 Plaintiff : Defendant Gudi Jayalakshmamma : G. Maheswari

1.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VIII, RULE 1: C.P.C. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2.

The allegations mentioned in the Plaint are all false and incorrect and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true and correct.

3.

The allegations mentioned in the Plaint that the plaint A Schedule Property described as ABCD in the Plaint sketch originally belonged to Kolle Peddanna who is the father of the Plaintiff and grand father of the Defendant and he bequeathed the same to the Plaintiff under a Will dt:19-081985 and after his demise, the Plaintiff became entitled to the Plaint A Schedule Property and that the Plaintiff has been in Possession and enjoyment of Plaint A Schedule Property and other Properties of her father are partly true and partly incorrect. The particulars of the measurements mentioned in the Plaint A & B Schedules and also in the rough sketch are not true and correct and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The further allegations mentioned in the Plaint that the Defendant promised to maintain the Plaintiff and obtained a sale deed in respect of a portion of Plaint A Schedule Property marked as CEFD in the sketch and did not maintain her and on the other hand, the Defendant and her husband have encroached the portion, EIJK in the ground floor and KLQF from the first floor to

third floor shown in yellow colour in the Plaint sketch, described in the Plaint B Schedule and prevented making use of EMQF portion passage by the Plaintiff and also residential house south of QF portion are all absolutely false and incorrect. The further allegations mentioned in the Plaint that the Plaintiff has sold 24 feet East-west, and 18 feet North-south to the Defendant and the Defendant has no right to make any constructions in EMQF portion shown in Yellow colour in the Sketch and when the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant for removal of the encroachment , the Defendant refused to do so and that the Plaintiff conveyed Panchayath in the presence of elders and elders advised the Defendant that it is not fair on her part or on the part of her husband to encroach and make constructions in the Plaint B Schedule Property , but the Defendant did not heed to the advise of elders and they advised the Plaintiff to approach the court of law are all absolutely false and incorrect. 4. The Plaintiff has sold the House Property to the Defendant on 01-12-2009 under a Registered sale deed for Valuable Consideration of Rs.3 lakhs, consisting of ground floor and first floor bearing old D.NO:1/184 and New D.NO:1/521 with specific boundaries and the measurements were approximately mentioned as 24 feet East-west and 18 feet North-south, and the Possession was delivered to the Defendant under the above said sale deed. It is further submitted that as per the Will relied upon by the Plaintiff executed by her father on 19-08-1985, the East-west measurement for the House sold to the Defendant which bears the old D.NO:1/184 and New D.NO:1/521 was given as 7.26 mts, which comes to 24 feet and the same is mentioned in the sale deed of the Defendant by looking into the said document, though the actual East-west measurement is 28

feet on the ground. Anyhow, it is further submitted that the Eastern boundary for the Property sold to the Defendant by the Plaintiff under the above said sale deed dt: 01-12-2009, is clearly mentioned as Passage leading to the houses on the southern side of the Plaint Schedule Property. It is further submitted that originally , there was bath room to the house of the Defendant on the eastern side adjoining the passage with a width of 4 feet and similarly, there was bath room to the west of the Plaintiffs house with a width of 4 feet adjoining the passage. Therefore, while drafting the sale deed of the Defendant, the measurement of the house was mentioned as 24 feet East-west; and the right in the bath room also was conveyed by the Plaintiff and mentioned in the Registered sale deed. However, it is well settled proposition of law that boundaries will prevail over the measurements and the eastern boundary which is the passage is the land mark and the house of Ali Khan on the western side is another land mark and the same is mentioned in the Registered sale deed and in between the said two boundaries, the Property was sold to the Defendant under the above said Registered sale deed dt:01-12-2009. Further, there were lavatory and bath rooms in the first floor which was also clearly mentioned in the said sale deed. Thus, the Defendant has not encroached any inch of the Plaintiffs Property as alleged in the Plaint out of Plaint A Schedule Property and only to black mail the Defendant and extract some money, the alleged encroachment is stated in the Plaint. The houses of the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the same time and as the Defendant and her husband are residing in Bangalore city due to their avocation, the Plaintiff herself stood and got constructed the Defendants house and also her house at one and the same time. If the alleged encroachment were to be there, she would not have constructed in the manner alleged in the Plaint. Thus, the

Plaintiff knows that there is no encroachment made by the Defendant into her Property and as stated above, only to black mail the Defendant, such allegation is levelled against her. The false contention taken by the Plaintiff in the Plaint that the Defendant obtained sale deed dt:01-12-2009 with a promise to look after her without mentioning the sale Consideration amount of Rs.3 lakhs received by her under the said sale deed itself speaks volumes about the falsity of the Plaintiffs case. Both the houses of the Plaintiff and the Defendant were constructed in the year, 2010-2011 under the supervision of the Plaintiff and filing this suit now itself shows the malafide motives of the Plaintiff. The Defendant further submits that the passage which is in between the houses of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is only to have access for the houses of third parties on the southern side and the Plaintiff has nothing to do with the passage and the same is not accessible to her house in any manner. Thus, the Plaintiff can not make any claim for the constructions upon the passage in the first floor to the third floor shown as KLQF in the Plaint sketch. Thus, the Defendant has not made any encroachment described as Plaint B Schedule, in the Property of the Plaintiff shown as Plaint A Schedule, in any manner and the Plaintiff never raised any such objection at anytime. Further more, the Plaintiff has not shown the measurements of her house Property with oblique motives. The measurement given in Plaint A Schedule from Eastwest as 40 feet is false and incorrect. The D.NO., of the Plaint A Schedule house also is wrongly mentioned as 1/521, and it is actually 1/522A. Thus, the Plaintiffs claim is absolutely false and incorrect. 5. There is no cause of action to file this suit and the alleged cause of action set out in the Plaint is incorrect. The particulars of valuation and the court fee paid thereon are

incorrect. The description of plaint Schedule is incorrect and they are false and imaginary. The plaint sketch is incorrect and imaginary. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The other allegations mentioned in the Plaint are all hereby denied as false and incorrect. 6. The Defendant reserves her right to file Additional Written Statement, if necessary, at the appropriate stage, with the leave of this Honble court. 7. It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Honble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Defendant Defendant Verification The facts stated above are all read over and explained to me in Telugu and admitted herein to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Madanapalle, Dt: Defendant