Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    Rejoinder - Lata Savardekar

    Uploaded by

    Anuj
    This document is a rejoinder filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendant's reply. It addresses each paragraph of the defendant's reply, denying some contents and stating that others require no specific reply. The plaintiff asserts their equal rights to the disputed property as a legal heir.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rejoinder - Lata Savardekar

    Uploaded by

    Anuj
    128 views8 pages
    This document is a rejoinder filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendant's reply. It addresses each paragraph of the defendant's reply, denying some contents and stating that others require no specific reply. The plaintiff asserts their equal rights to the disputed property as a legal heir.

    Original Title

    Rejoinder- Lata Savardekar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a rejoinder filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendant's reply. It addresses each paragraph of the defendant's reply, denying some contents and stating that others require no specific reply. The plaintiff asserts their equal rights to the disputed property as a legal heir.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    128 views8 pages

    Rejoinder - Lata Savardekar

    Uploaded by

    Anuj
    This document is a rejoinder filed by the plaintiff in response to the defendant's reply. It addresses each paragraph of the defendant's reply, denying some contents and stating that others require no specific reply. The plaintiff asserts their equal rights to the disputed property as a legal heir.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY

    NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1505 OF 2022


    IN
    S.C. SUIT NO. 2874 OF 2018.

    Lata Manohar Sawardekar


    Nee Lata Chandrakant Devrukhkar
    ….Plaintiff
    Versus
    Kalpana wd/o Satyawan Devrukhkar
    & Ors
    ….Defendants

    REJOINDER TO THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-


    REPLY OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 TO
    THE NOTICE OF MOTION FILED BY THE
    PLAINTIFF.

    I, Lata Manohar Sawardekar Nee Lata Chandrakant


    Devrukhkar, age- 43 years, the Plaintiff abovenamed, do hereby
    state and declare on solemn affirmation as under:-

    1. With reference to Para No. 1 & 2 of your said reply is nothing


    but a monotonous stereotyped and formatted evasive denial reply
    which lack any specific input by the Defendants and thus is
    considered nothing more than a mere fulfilment of formality to
    reply which is not only devoid of any merit but also suffers from
    infirmities as to factual content as alleged against the Plaintiff.

    2. With reference to Para No. 3 to 6 of your said reply, no specific


    reply/explanation is required as it contains no specific fact which
    could be dealt with.

    3. With reference to Para No. 7 (a) of your said reply, the contents
    therein are matter of facts placed on record and thereby requires
    no specific reply as the same are undisputed.

    4. With reference to Para No. 7 (b) & (c) of your said reply, the
    Plaintiff states that the contentions made therein are denied in
    toto and states the real fact that after the death of the Smt. Laxmi
    Chandrakant Devrukhar (for short “said deceased”), the
    Defendants No. 1 with an ill intention and ulterior motive and in
    collusion with the concerned authorities, transfer the suit
    premises in her name exclusively for which the Plaintiff
    addressed her objection letter dated 02/04/2013 to the Defendant
    No. 4 and took objection for transfer of the suit premises in the
    name of the Defendant No. 1 or anybody, without obtaining the
    consent of the Plaintiff as she is one of the heirs and legal
    representative and thereby entitled for 1/3 share in the said
    property. The Plaintiff states that she had also sought information
    under the RTI Act 2005 bearing RTI Application dated
    14/10/2013 from the Defendant No. 4 to find whether there is
    any application made in respect of the suit premises for effecting
    transfer in the name of the Legal heir and representative for the
    Smt. Laxmi Chandrakant Devrukhar (for short “said deceased”).

    5. With reference to Para No. 7 (d) & (e) of your said reply, the
    Plaintiff states that that the content of para under are totally
    wrong, false and hence denied and each and every contents of
    para under reply are vehemently and specifically denied in toto
    word by word and states the real fact that it was decided that all
    the children would have equal rights in respect of the suit
    premises and nobody would claim exclusive rights over the suit
    premises and also that the parties hereto being legal heirs of the
    said deceased, Ownership rights in respect of the said suit
    premises devolved amongst the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1
    to 3.

    6. With reference to Para No. 8 (erroneously stated as Para No.


    10) the Plaintiff shall deal with the contents of the Reply, para
    wise as under:-

    a. With reference to Para No. 8 (a) & (b), the Plaintiff states
    that the contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff
    accepts nothing contrary to what is stated in the suit.

    b. With reference to Para No. 8 (c) to (k), the Plaintiff states


    that the contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff
    accepts nothing contrary to what is stated in the suit.
    c. With reference to Para No. 8 (l), the Plaintiff denies the
    content in toto and states the real fact that after it came to
    knowledge that the factum of transfer of rent receipt in
    respect of the suit premises, the Plaintiff obtained the
    information under RTI by making the applications to the
    Defendant No. 4 and came to know that on the basis of false
    and misleading representations made by the Defendant No. 1
    and forged signature purported to be signed by the Defendant
    No. 2, the Defendant No. 1 with the help of some officials of
    the Defendant No. 4, has succeeded in getting the suit
    premises transferred in her name.

    d. With reference to Para No. 8 (m), the Plaintiff states denies


    the entire para in toto and states the real fact that the
    Defendant No. 4 ought not to have transferred the suit
    premises without the knowledge and consent of the other
    heirs and legal representative of late Mrs. Laxmi Chandrakant
    Devrukhkar. The Plaintiff states that the conduct on the part
    of the officials of the Defendant No. 4 clearly shows that they
    gave undue favour to the Defendant No. 1. In one of the
    incidents, she noticed that there was collusion between the
    officials of the Defendant No. 4 and the Defendant No. 1 and
    hence she had to make a police complaint with the Antop Hill
    Police Station.

    e. With reference to Para No. 8 (n), the Plaintiff repeat,


    reiterate and restate that she is one of the heirs and legal
    representative and hence she is entitled to get 1/3rd undivided
    share in respect of the suit premises.

    f. With reference to Para No. 8 (o), the Plaintiff states that the
    contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff accepts
    nothing contrary to what is stated in the Plaint. Further, the
    Plaintiff states that being a legal heir of late Laxmi
    Chandrakant Devrukhkar, she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the
    suit premises and her legal rights are continuing and cannot
    be denied by any of the Defendants.

    g. With reference to Para No. 8 (p) & (q), the Plaintiff states
    that the contents therein warrant no reply and the Plaintiff
    accepts nothing contrary to what is stated in the Plaint.

    h. With reference to Para No. 8 (f) to (j), the Plaintiff states that
    it is nothing but a monochrome relies which serve me nothing
    but mere denial of every fact put forth by the Plaintiff.
    However, the Plaintiff states that even your endless denials
    could not change the fact that the Plaintiff is one of the heirs
    and legal representative and hence she is entitled to get 1/3 rd
    undivided share in respect of the suit premises. Further, the
    Plaintiff states that the act of evasive denial, clearly infers
    that the Defendants have nothing to cover your malicious
    act, which leaves the Defendants with no other option but
    to merely deny the facts.
    i. With reference to Para No. 8 (k), the Plaintiff states that she
    has paid the appropriate court fees u/s. 6 (iv) of the Bombay
    Court fees Act.

    j. With reference to Para No. 8 (l), the Plaintiff vehemently


    denies the contents therein and states that present Suit is well
    within the period of limitation and cannot be barred by law.

    k. With reference to Para No. 8 (m), the Plaintiff denies the


    entire para in toto and states the real fact that

    l. With reference to Para No. 8 (n), the contents therein are


    noted.

    7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the Plaintiff


    have equal rights in respect of the suit premises and after the
    death of the mother Smt. Laxmi Chandrakant Devrukhar (for
    short “said deceased”), the parties hereto being the legal heirs of
    the deceased, ownership rights in respect of the said suit
    premises devolved amongst them i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendant
    No. 1 to 3. The Plaintiff humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court
    to be please to allow necessary prayers mentioned in the Suit.

    Advocate for the Plaintiff Plaintiff


    V E R I F I C A T I O N.

    I, Lata Manohar Sawardekar Nee Lata Chandrakant


    Devrukhkar, age- 43 years, the Plaintiff abovenamed, do hereby
    solemnly declare and state that what is stated in the foregoing
    paragraphs are true to my own knowledge and belief and I believe
    the same to be true:-

    Solemnly declared at Mumbai, )


    This day of , 2023 ) Before me

    Advocate for the Plaintiff


    IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
    NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1505 OF 2022
    IN
    S.C. SUIT NO. 2874 OF 2018.

    Lata Manohar Sawardekar


    Nee Lata Chandrakant Devrukhkar
    ….Plaintiff
    Versus
    Kalpana wd/o Satyawan Devrukhkar & Ors
    ….Defendants

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    REJOINDER TO THE AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY OF
    DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 TO THE NOTICE OF
    MOTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dated this day of , 2023

    Sonal Hemant Mishal


    Advocate For Plaintiff
    Office No.1, Basement, Shopper’s
    Point, Next to Moti Mahal Hotel,
    Opp. Andheri Railway Station
    Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058.
    Enrollment No. MAH/3566/2006
    Email: [email protected]
    O.S. Regd: - 16234.
    Advocate Code No.I-17497
    Mobile No. 9969849102/9820846067

    You might also like