IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD.

CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO.96547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. 01. Written statement on behalf of the defendants

No.5(a) and 5(b) i.e. Mr Harish Moolchandani
and Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani respectively
both sons of late Mr Kisan Chand Moolchandani
(originally impleaded as defendant NO.5 in the
suit) with supporting affidavits.

Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani

Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani

Through

SHEKHAR GUPTA &

MANISH SHARMA
Advocates
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Chamber: 305, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email : shekharguptaadvocate@gmail.com
Place: New Delhi.
Dated:
A-Harish Moolchandani-WS-VP
 IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO.96547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants

INDEX

(List of documents on behalf of defendants No.5(a) and 5(b) i.e. Mr

Harish Moolchandani and Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
respectively)

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. True copy of assessment order dated 15.2.1971

passed by Income Tax Officer, New Delhi in the
name of Mr Kishan Chand i.e. father of the
defendant.

2. True copy of receipts dated 29.4.1971 and

15.7.1972 issued by LIC of India in the name of
father of the defendants.

3. True copy of orders dated 29.12.1973 and

8.8.1975 passed by the Appellate Asstt.
Commissioner of Income Tax issued in the
name of Mr Kishan Chand of M/s V Kishan
Chand Ganga Ram.

4. True copy of sale deed dated 11.11.2003 in

favour of Mr Radha Kishan Manuja of one shop
on ground floor bearing private No.4867-A
carpet area 180 sq ft appx. Forming part of
property municipal Nos.4866 to 4868, Cloth
Market, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi.
 5. True copy of sale deed dated 23.3.2006
executed by Mr Radha Kishan Manuja in favour
of defendants No.5-A and 5-B of one shop on
ground floor bearing private No.4867-A carpet
area 180 sq ft appx. Forming part of property
municipal Nos.4866 to 4868, Cloth Market,
Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi

Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani

Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani

Through

SHEKHAR GUPTA &

MANISH SHARMA
Advocates
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Chamber: 305, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email : shekharguptaadvocate@gmail.com
Place: New Delhi.
Dated:
A-Harish Moolchandani-WS-VP
 IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO.96547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants

Written statement on behalf of the defendants No.5(a) and 5(b) i.e.

Mr Harish Moolchandani and Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
respectively both sons of late Mr Kisan Chand Moolchandani
(originally impleaded as defendant NO.5 in the suit)

Most respectfully showeth :-

Preliminary submissions :-

1. It is stated that the present written statement is being filed by the

defendants No.5 (a) and 5(b) i.e. Mr Harish Moolchandani and

Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani respectively. It is stated that

originally the plaintiff has impleaded Mr Kishan Chand

Moolchandani as defendant NO.5 who expired on 1.5.2005 left

behind following legal heirs :

(i) Mrs. Mohini Devi (wife) (expired on 11.4.2013)

(ii) Mrs. Divya Kukreja (married daughter)

(iii) Mr Harish Moolchandani (married son)

(iv) Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani (married son)

It is stated that post death of late Mr Kishan Chand

Moolchandani, his wife Mrs Mohini Devi and daughter Ms Divya

 Kukreja signed and executed a registered relinquishment deed

dated 23.6.2006 in favour of the defendants NO.5 (a) and 5(b)

thereby relinquishing their rights in the suit property i.e. shop

NO.4867-B, admeasuring 21.08 sq yds (appx forming part of

property bearing Municipal Nos.4866 to 4868 at Cloth Market,

Ganesh Bazar, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi 110006.

In view of the above it is only the defendants No.5 (a) and 5(b)

who are the absolute owner in possession of the suit property

and filing the present written statement in opposition to the suit.

The true copy of the death certificate of late Mr Kishan Chand

Moolchandani and Mrs. Mohini Devi and relinquishment deed

dated 23.3.2006 have also been filed with reply to the application

filed by the plaintiff under order 22 rule 4 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

Preliminary objections :-

1. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by

limitation as the plaintiff has sought a decree of declaration with

respect to the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 executed with respect to

the suit property in favour of original defendants No.5 i.e. Late Mr

Kishan Chand Moolchandani. It is stated that the present suit

has been filed after a period of 15 long years by the plaintiff from

the date of registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998. It is stated that

the plaintiff from day one was very well aware of the sale deed

dated 7.4.1998 and ownership of the father of the defendants

No.5(a) and 5(b) in the suit property. It is stated that the father of

the defendant and now the defendants No.5(a) and (b) have
 been in settled occupant and possession of the suit property for

about more than 50 years earlier as tenant and later since

7.4.1998 as owner of the suit property. It is a matter of record

and admitted position that the plaintiff has been doing its

business activities from the adjacent shop of suit property in

shop in property No.4867. It is stated that the plaintiff was aware

of the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 from day one of its execution.

However now in the year 2013 has field the present suit in the

most illegal and abusing manner. It is also a matter of record

that the plaintiff has submitted a complaint dated 9.4.1998 to the

ACP / SHO of PS Lahori Gate, Delhi alleging that the property

No.4868, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi was illegally sold by its

owner. It is stated that the said complaint was filed by the plaintiff

just after 2 days of execution of sale deed dated 7.4.1998 which

clearly show and prove that the plaintiff was well aware of the

sale deed dated 7.4.1998 with respect to the suit property since

beginning. The present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and

only on this ground is liable to be dismissed.

2. It is stated that the present suit is barred under Section 34 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is stated that it is admitted position

that it is the answering defendants who are in occupation of the

suit property. However despite of the same the plaintiff has not

sought any relief of possession of the suit property. It is stated

that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has

only sought a relief of declaration and omitted to seek the further

relief of possession which plaintiff is able to seek.

3. That the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and

liable to be dismissed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,

1963 as the plaintiff has not sought any declaration as to his

legal character or right in the suit property which is a condition

precedent in a suit for declaration. It is stated that the title of the

plaintiff in the suit property is not established and under absolute

cloud. However the plaintiff has not sought any relief of

declaration with respect to his title in the suit property and in

absence thereof the present suit is not maintainable and liable to

be dismissed.

4. The present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the plaintiff has

claimed in the plaint that the plaintiff has a share in the suit

property along with defendants NO.1 to 4. However the plaintiff

has not sought any relief of partition and therefore the suit is not

maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. That it is stated that the present suit is barred under Section 34

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as e plaintiff has not sought any

relief with respect to the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by late

Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain in favour of defendants NO.1 to 4.

6. That it is stated that he present suit is liable to be dismissed as

the plaintiff ahs no locus to file the present suit. It is stated so

because the plaintiff has no right to challenge the validity and

genuineness of the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by Mr

Sukhbir Chand Jain in favour of the defendant No.1 to 4. It is

stated that late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain i.e. mother of the Mr

Sukhbir Chand Jain was expired on 14.1.2012 i.e. much after the
 death of Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain on 5.12.1992 and also after the

execution of registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 in favour of

defendant NO.5. It is matter of record and admitted position that

Mrs Shanti Devi Jain never challenged the Will dated 14.11.1992

executed by Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain and also not challenged the

registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 during her lifetime. It is

stated that the plaintiff is not a legal heir of late Mr Sukhbir

Chand Jain and he has no locus to challenge the genuineness

and validity of the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by Mr Sukhbir

Chand Jain during his lifetime. On this ground alone the present

suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff is estopped to file the

present suit by raising any challenge to the validity of the Will

dated 14.11.1992 executed by Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain and

registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 as Mrs Shanti Devi Jain

herself never challenged the Will dated 14.11.1992 executed by

Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain and registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998

during her lifetime.

7. That it is stated that the present suit is without any cause of

action and liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has claimed his

right in the suit property from the alleged Will dated 21.9.1993 of

late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain. First of all the said Will has not been

proved in any court of law and secondly in the entire Will there

was no mention of the suit property. It is stated that a bare

reading of the alleged Will dated 21.9.1993 alleged to have been

executed by late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain would clearly show that

she was aware at the time of execution of her Will that he has no

interest in the suit property and for this reason alone she has not

mentioned about the suit property in the said alleged Will. It is

 stated that plaintiff is claiming his rights in the suit property on

the basis of Will dated 21.9.1993 however there is no mention of

the suit property in the said Will and for this reason alone the suit

is bad and without any cause of action and liable to be

dismissed. The above objection is without prejudice to the

contention of the answering defendants that the alleged Will

dated 21.9.1993 of Mrs Shanti Devi Jain is not valid and genuine

and same is forged and fabricated.

8. That it is stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is without any

cause of action and liable to be dismissed. It is stated that even

from the bare reading of the plaint it shall reveal that the case set

up by the plaintiff is that, that after the partition took place in the

year 1974 the suit property went to the share of late Mr Sukhbir

Chand Jain i.e. to the exclusion of plaintiff. Further after the

death of Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain the said property came to the

ownership of defendants no.1 to 4 in terms of the Will dated

14.11.1992 executed by Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain during his

lifetime in favour of defendants No.1 to 4. For this ground alone

the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. That it is stated that the answering defendants (through their

deceased father) are the bonafide purchaser of the suit property

against the full consideration paid and without any notice. It is

stated that the answering defendant has purchased the suit

property in good faith and without any notice of any alleged right

of the plaintiff in the suit property and also have paid the full

consideration to its vendors and have been in possession of the

suit property as owners since 7.4.1998 as owners. Otherwise

 the answering defendants (through their father) have been in

settled possession of the suit property for about more than 50

years as mentioned herein above.

10. That it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable for the

relief of permanent injunction as the plaintiff has no personal

interest in the suit property and the suit is barred under Section

41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

11. That it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable for the

relief of permanent injunction as the plaintiff ahs not claimed the

consequential relief of partition and possession and therefore the

suit is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act,

1963.

Reply on merits :-

1. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint as stated are wrong and

incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that late Mrs Shanti

Devi Jain executed a regd. Will dated 21.9.1993 during her

lifetime and by virtue of the said Will the plaintiff is entitled to all

the benefits of late Mrs Shanti Devi Jain. It is stated that firstly

the said Will dated 21.9.1993 is not proved in any court of law

and secondly and without prejudice to the same there is no

mention of the suit property in the alleged Will dated 21.9.1993.

The contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as

part and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated

herewith for the sake of brevity.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the plaint as stated are denied for

want of knowledge as the answering defendants are alien to the

partition mentioned in the corresponding para. The plaintiff is put

to strict proof thereof. However it is admitted position that Mr

Sukhbir Chand Jain was the owner of the suit property.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the plaint as stated are matter of

record and do not call for any reply.

4-5. That the contents of paras 4 and 5 of the plaint as stated are

wrong and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that Mr

Sukhbir Chand Jain died intestate on 5.12.1992 leaving behind

the defendants No.1 to 4 and Mrs Shanti Devi Jain has his legal

heir. It is stated that Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain executed a Will

dated 14.11.1992 during his lifetime in favour of defendants No.1

to 4 on which basis the said defendants NO.1 to 4 became

owner of the suit property and later sold the same to the father of

the answering defendants vide regd. sale deed dated 7.4.1998.

The filing of the succession case NO.782/2004 titled “Mohini

Devi Jain V/s Stat & Others” and contents thereof are denied for

want of knowledge. It is further stated that even if it is assumed

though denied that it was mentioned in the said succession

petition that Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain had made no Will during his

lifetime, same shall not make the factual position alter or change

to the effect that late Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain executed a Will

dated 14.11.1992 during his lifetime. It is stated that the estate of

late Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain including the suit property devolved

upon defendants no.1 to 4 after his death in terms of his Will

dated 14.11.1992. Rest of the contents are denied same being

 wrong and incorrect. The contents of the preliminary objections

may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present para and

same are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the plaint as stated are correct and

matter of record and do not call for any reply.

7. That the contents of para 7 of the plaint as stated are correct to

the extent that the defendants No.1 to 4 had mentioned in the

sale deed dated 7.4.1998 that Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain had

executed a Will dated 14.11.1992 in their favour. It is stated that

the defendants no.1 to 4 rightly and validly sold the suit property

to the defendant NO.5. It is stated that the defendants NO.1 to 4

have all the rights to sell the suit property to the defendant no.5.

The contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as

part and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated

herewith for the sake of brevity.

8. That the contents of para 8 of the plaint as stated are wrong and

incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants NO.1

to 4 in connivance with each other had forged the Will dated

14.11.1992 that the sole motive to deprive Mrs Shanti Devi Jain

from her settled share in the property and the defendants have

not mentioned anything about the Will dated 14.11.1992 in the

petition field before Mr Sanjiv Kumar Jain, administrative Civil

Judge, Delhi. It is stated that the falsity of the corresponding

para of the plaint becomes clear from the fact that Mrs Shanti

Devi Jain expired on 14.1.2012 while the sale deed was

executed by the defendants NO.1 to 4 as back as on 7.4.1998

and for a period of long 14 years Mrs Shanti Devi Jain never
 raised any dispute with respect to the said sale deed dated

7.4.1998. It is stated that the suit property is known as shop

NO.4867-B, admeasuring about 21.08 sq yds forming part of

property No.4866 to 4868 at Cloth Market, Ganesh Bazar,

Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi 110006. It is further

stated that the answering defendants also purchased the

adjacent shop to the suit property i.e. shop No.4867-A forming

part of property No.4866 at Cloth Market, Ganesh Bazar, Church

Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi 110006 from its owner Mr Radha

Kishan Manuja vide regd. sale deed dated 23.03.2006. It is

stated that after purchasing the adjacent shop i.e. No.4867-A the

answering defendants had removed the intervening wall of shop

NO.4867-A – 4968-B and made on bigger shop. It is stated that

the plaintiff has filed the present suit with ulterior motives and

malafide intentions and same is liable to be dismissed. The

contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part

and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated

herewith for the sake of brevity.

9. That the contents of para 9 of the plaint as stated are wrong and

incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the plaintiff is the

sole beneficiary of Mrs Shanti Devi Jain on the basis of alleged

Will dated 21.9.1993. It is stated that the Will dated 21.9.1993

setup by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated and even otherwise

there is no mention of the suit property in the alleged Will dated

21.9.1993 alleged to have been executed by Mrs Shanti Devi

Jain. The contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be

read as part and parcel of the present para and same are not

repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.

10. That the contents of para 10 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants

NO.1 to 4 have executed the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 on a very

low price then the market value / circle rate of the property, in

favour of the defendants NO.5 and the sale deed is undervalued

document, hence the same is liable to be cancelled. It is stated

that the sale deed was executed at the prevailing market rates

and no such objection was raised by the concerned Sub-

Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed who is the

concerned authority to raise such objection if any. The contents

of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and

parcel of the present para and same are not repeated herewith

for the sake of brevity.

11. That the contents of para 11 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants

No.1 to 4 have sold the suit property to the defendant no.5 by

misrepresentation themselves to be the absolute owners of the

suit property which is illegal in law. The contents of the

preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel of

the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the

sake of brevity.

12. That the contents of para 12 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the sale

deed dated 7.4.1998 is liable to be cancelled as one of the co-

owner of the suit property under sale has neither received the

sale consideration nor has given her consent to the said sale
 deed and hence sale deed is void ab-initio. It is stated that Mrs

Shanti Devi Jain have raised any objection to the sale

transaction done on 7.4.1998 during her lifetime since the

execution of the sale deed on 7.4.1998 till her death on

14.1.2012 i.e. for a period of long 14 years. It is stated that the

time to file any suit in challenge to the sale deed dated 7.4.1998

had expired even during the lifetime of Mrs Shanti Devi Jain and

therefore now the plaintiff has no right and locus to challenge the

same. It is stated that the plaintiff and Mrs Shanti Devi Jain were

both very well aware of the execution of the sale deed dated

7.4.1998 since beginning and never challenged the same except

for the first time in 2013 the plaintiff has filed the present suit

which is false and frivolous. The contents of the preliminary

objections may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present

para and same are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.

13. That the contents of para 13 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the

defendants no.1 to 4 with active connivance of each other and

also with defendant no.5 and with sole intention to deceive and

cheat and to give wrongful loss to the plaintiff, has dishonestly

and fraudulently executed the sale deed on the basis of forged

and fabricated Will dated 14.11.1992. It is stated that there is no

question of cheating the plaintiff by defendants no.1 to 4 and / or

defendant No.5 as the sale deed was executed on 7.4.1998

when Mrs Shanti Devi Jain was alive and even if it is assumed,

though denied that Mrs Shanti Devi Jain has any right in the suit

property the plaintiff did not come into the picture at all. The

contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part

 and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated

herewith for the sake of brevity.

14. That the contents of para 14 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that defendants

with connivance of each other and fraudulently and dishonestly

executed the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 which has no value in the

eyes of law It is stated that the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 is

absolutely valid, legal and has been executed in the most correct

and legal manner. The contents of the preliminary objections

may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present para and

same are not repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.

15. That the contents of para 15 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that plaintiff came

to know about the execution of the sale deed dated 7.4.1998

when defendants no.1 to 4 moved an application / reply in a

partition suit pending before Delhi High Court, New Delhi that

they have not sold any property of Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain. It is

denied that the plaintiff was asked by his counsel appearing

before Delhi High Court, New Delhi to search about the status of

the properties of late Mr Sukhbir Chand Jain in December, 2012

and then the plaintiff came to know that defendants No.1 to 4

have sold two shops on the ground floor, entire first floor and

second floor with roof of the property bearing no.4866-68, Cloth

Market, Delhi 110006 to two different persons, who are found to

be occupying their respective portions and on inquiry, this fact

came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the first week of

January, 2013 from the respective occupants that they have

purchased from the defendants no.1 to 4 vide registered sale

deed and then the plaintiff made a search before Registrar office

and then applied for certified copies of the sale deed on

10.1.2013 which were received on 11.1.2013 and 15.1.2013. It

is stated that the contents of the corresponding para are

absolutely wrong and incorrect and therefore denied. It is stated

that though the defendants are not aware about the alleged

partition suit mentioned in the corresponding para of the plaint

and even otherwise the plaintiff has chosen not to place on

record any document pertaining to the alleged partition suit.

Secondly the plaintiff never inquired from the answering

defendant about their status as alleged in the corresponding

para. Further it is stated that the plaintiff is very much aware

about the ownership and possession of the answering defendant

in the suit property since beginning i.e. from the date of

registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 as the plaintiff is running his

shop from the same premises and adjacent shop to the suit

property. In this regard it is also relevant to mention here that

the plaintiff had submitted a complaint dated 9.4.1998 to the

ACP / SHO of PS Lahori Gate, Delhi alleging that the property

No.4868, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi was illegally sold by its

owner. It is stated that the said complaint was filed by the plaintiff

just after 2 days of execution of sale deed dated 7.4.1998 which

clearly show and prove that the plaintiff was well aware of the

sale deed dated 7.4.1998 with respect to the suit property since

beginning. It is stated that the plaintiff has stated falsehood on

oath and liable to be prosecuted for the offence of perjury and

 the story has been concocted by the plaintiff to save the time of

limitation which has already been expired long back.

16. That the contents of para 16 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the plaintiff

got issued legal notice to the defendants on 28.1.2013 by regd.

post and speed post. It is stated that no legal notice whatsoever

has been served on answering defendants or their father at any

point of time. The contents of the legal notice are wrong and

incorrect and therefore denied so as the service of legal notice

on the answering defendants. It is also relevant to point out that

the plaintiff claimed the possession of the suit property by the

alleged notice dated 28.1.2013. However no relief of possession

has been claimed in the present suit and for this reason alone

the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the Section 34 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 as mentioned herein above. The

contents of the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part

and parcel of the present para and same are not repeated

herewith for the sake of brevity.

17. That the contents of para 17 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the sale

deed dated 7.4.1998 is liable to be declared as null and void ab-

initio qua the suit property as the defendants no.1 to 4 have

executed the sale deed on the basis of forged and fabricated Will

dated 14.11.1992 and without having ownership rights, title or

interest thereon. It is stated that the sale deed dated 7.4.1998 is

absolutely legal and valid and has been rightly executed by the

defendants NO.1 to 4 to the defendant NO.5. The contents of

 the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel

of the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the

sake of brevity.

18. That the contents of para 18 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is denied that the

defendant no.5 on the basis of alleged sale deed is trying to

disposes of the suit property further and the defendant no.5 has

no right, title and interest for the suit property It is denied that

plaintiff has requested the defendant NO.5 not to transfer / sell

the suit property on the basis of void documents, but he is not

ready to clear the lawful demands of the plaintiff and the plaintiff

has no other option but to seek the assistance of this Hon'ble

Court and hence this suit. The felicity of the entire claim of the

plaintiff is proved by the plaintiff himself by the false averments

made in the corresponding para. It is stated that the plaintiff has

alleged that he had requested the defendant NO.5 to not to

transfer the suit property and the defendant no.5 was not ready

to clear the lawful demands of the plaintiff It is stated that it is

admitted position that the defendant no.5 has expired long back

on 1.5.2005 and therefore there is no question of meeting the

plaintiff to the defendant NO.5 and requesting the defendant

No.5 to not to sell the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff has

no legs to stand upon and the entire suit is based on false

averments and liable to be dismissed. The contents of the

preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel of

the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the

sake of brevity.
19. That the contents of para 19 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is stated that the present

suit file db the plaintiff is without any cause of action and plaintiff

has no right and locus to file the present suit. The contents of

the preliminary objections may kindly be read as part and parcel

of the present para and same are not repeated herewith for the

sake of brevity.

20. That the contents of para 20 of the plaint as stated are wrong

and incorrect and therefore denied. It is stated that the plaintiff

has not valued the suit correctly and no proper court fees has

been paid on the plaint.

21. That the contents of para 1 of the plaint do not call for any reply.

The prayer made by the plaintiff is frivolous and false and the suit filed

by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

PRAYER

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: -

(i) dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs

imposed on the plaintiff,

(ii) pass any other order / direction that this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani

Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani

Through

SHEKHAR GUPTA &

MANISH SHARMA
Advocates
(Enrl. No. D-955/07)
Office: C-17, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (East)
Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065
Chamber: 305, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003.
Ph: 26911396, 26933563, Cell: 9868790800
Email : shekharguptaadvocate@gmail.com
Place: New Delhi.
Dated:
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this _________ day of _________ 2017

that the contents of para 1 of the preliminary submission and paras 1 to

18 of the reply on merits are true and correct to my knowledge while

the contents of paras 1 to 10 of preliminary objections and contents of

para 19 t 21 are based on legal advice and believed to be true.

The last para is prayer to this Hon'ble Court.

Defendant No.5(a)
Mr Harish Moolchandani

Defendant No.5(b)
Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani
 IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO.96547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr Harish Moolchandani son of late Mr Kisan Chand

Moolchandani r/o A-119, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi 110034 aged
52 years.

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

under: -

1. That I being the defendant NO.5 (a) am fully competent and

authorized to swear the present affidavit. The deponent is fully

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the contents of accompanying written statement are true

and correct to my knowledge and belief. The same has been

drafted and prepared under my instructions.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of _______________, 2017 that

the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF Ms SONAM SINGH, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-05
CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO.96547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Subhash Chand Jain .. Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mrs Mohini Devi Jain & Others ..Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr Vinod Kumar Moolchandani son of late Mr Kisan

Chand Moolchandani r/o A-119, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi
110034 aged 52 years.

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

under: -

1. That I being the defendant NO.5 (b) am fully competent and

authorized to swear the present affidavit. The deponent is fully

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the contents of accompanying written statement are true

and correct to my knowledge and belief. The same has been

drafted and prepared under my instructions.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of _______________, 2017 that

the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed there from.

DEPONENT