SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DADU

                     ABC S/o D.M. Cast      , R/o    Tehsil & District, Dadu.…............PLAINTIFF

Vs.

1.                                                 FDA S/o M.D. Cast      , R/o    , Tehsil & District, Dadu.

2.                                                 Muhammad Tufail S/o Muhammad Aashiq (late) father of the defendant, 

                            Cast      , R/o    , Tehsil & District Dadu .............................DEFENDANT

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF

Respectfully Sheweth:

1)      That Muhamad Aashiq the later father of the defendant No. 2 was the owner of agricultural land measuring 25 Kanal situated in Khasra No.    Khatuni No.     At Mauza         Tehsil & District, Dadu.

2)      That said Muhammad Aashiq died, the suit property was inherited by his only son defendant No. 2 who entered into agreement to sell dated 25-6-1996 in favour of the plaintiff.

3)      That the defendant No. 2 also received full consideration of Rs.10 lac from the plaintiff.

4)      That a suit for specific performance was instituting against the defendant No.2 which was decreed by the Court out of the compromise. Copy of the same is placed on record.

5)      That the defendant No. 1 is asserting his right of having purchased the suit land in exchange three years ago.

6)      That the said exchange deed in question is false and fabricated and has no mentioned in the record of rights nor registered according to law.

7)      That the defendant No. 1 as a matter of fact has no interest or right in the suit property and his claim qua the suit property is false and fabricated.

8)      That the plaintiff has obtained possession of the suit property and is presently in exclusive possession of the same.

9)      That the defendant No. 1 is presently trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of alleged exchange deed. He try so dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and through the help of Qabza Group, an FIR to this extent was promptly lodge with the police station.

10)  That the defendant No. 1 was approached to not to interfere onto the peaceful possession of the plaintiff but he refused to do so rather asserted his desire to disposes the plaintiff by force hence this suit.

11)  That the cause of action arose at Dadu where the parties resides and the suit property situate as such this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

12)  That the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is fixed at Rs.20, 000/-.

It is therefore respectfully prayed that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff ordering the defendant not to legally dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, permanently restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit be awarded.

PLAINTIFF

Through

Counsel

Verification:

Verified on oath at Lahore the 10^th of September, 2010 that the contents of Para No. 1-10are true to the best of my knowledge and that of Paras No. 11-12 to the best of my information and belief.

PLAINTIFF

(SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF)

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Preliminary objection:

1)      That the plaintiff has not come in this Court with clean hands he has concealed the true facts of the case. As a matter of fact the defendant is the true owner of the suit land which stands mutated is his name after execution of exchange deed by Muhammad Aashiq the predecessor interest of the defendant No. 2.

2)      That a suit in this respect is also pending granted adjudication in the Court of Civil Judge Dadu. Whereorder stay has been granted in favour of the answering defendant.

3)      That no property was available to be inherited by defendant No. 2, as the late father of defendant No. 2 has already alienated the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 1 through exchange deed which was duly acted upon by the parties.

4)      That the suit is fictitious and liable to be set aside with special damaged as provided in law.

ON MERITS:

1)      Admitted.

2)      Admitted to the extent that said Muhammad Aashiq died in May, 1996. It is incorrect and categorically denied that he left behind any land to be inherited by defendant No.2. As no land was available to be inherited, defendant No. 2 has no right to execute agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff.

3)      Incorrect and denied.

4)      Incorrect and denied. The suit for specific performance was collusively instituted and the decree thus obtained is result of fraud and misrepresentation. The same has been challenged u/s 12(2), C.P.C., in the same Court which has passed the decree.

5)      Admitted.

6)      Incorrect and denied. The exchange deed is valid and has duly acted upon by the parties. Mutation in this respect has also been sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities.

7)      Incorrect and denied.

8)      Incorrect and denied. The taking of possession does not arise. The decree in suit for specific performance is mot executable per see unless a registered sale deed is written and executed before the Sub-Registrar and mutation to this Fact is entered in the revenue record. It is not permissible under the law to give effect to said decree in the revenue record without an order of the executing Court. Reference is made to PLD 2010 Lah. 42.

9)      Incorrect and denied. The possession of the suit property is already with the answering defendant which was obtained while implementing the exchange deed of the property in question duly executed by the father of the defendant No. 2 in his life time.

10)  Incorrect and denied.

11)  Incorrect and denied.

12)  Legal need not reply.

It is therefore respectfully prayer that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs. The suit having been instituted vexatiously it is liable to be dismissed with special cost.

DEFENDANT

Through

Counsel

Verification:

Verified on oath at Dadu the 10^th of September, 2010 that the contents of Paras No. 1-10 are true to the best of my knowledge and that of Paras No. 11-12 along with preliminary objections 1-4 to the best of my information.

DEFENDANT