IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJRANI, LD.

PJFC,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO. 45 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. KRISHNA CHOUDHARY ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

MR. NIRAJ JHA & ANR. ...DEFENDANTS

REPLY TO APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1

UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF C.P.C., 1908.

Most Respectfully Showeth:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS:

A) That it is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
application under reply has been filed by the defendant no. 1 with
ulterior motives and is egregiously false and frivolous and has been
filed by the defendant no. 1 merely to mislead and waste precious time
of this Hon'ble Court and hence, is liable to be dismissed on the sole
ground with heavy cost.

B) That it is stated that the shops in question were purchased from the
joint funds of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in the year 2016 and
the said shops were manipulatively registered in the singular name of
defendant no. 1. The cumulative purchase price of the said shops in
question, at the time of registration of the said shops in the name of
 defendant no. 1, back in year 2016 was Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Thirty Lacs Only). Subsequently, at the time of arising of cause
of action, when defendant no. 1 presented a sale deed in the office of
Sub-Registrar – VI-A, in favour of his illegal second wife namely, Ms.
Heena Tyagi, in year 2022, defendant no. 1 mentioned the
consideration amount of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty-
Seven Lacs Only). The extent to which this instant application under
reply is moonshined is thus, clearly evident from the fact that the value
of impugned property/shops raised by merely seven lacs from 2016 to
2022, but now, respondent no. 1 states in his application that the value
of suit property is Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) and
astoundingly, the value of the suit property has raised by Rs.
6,63,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty-Three Lacs Only) from year
2022 to 2024 as per the averments of defendant no. 1, which is quite
hard to perceive and is next to impossible. Rather, it is submitted that
due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, it has been extensively
observed that the value of property in general has reduced and has not
enhanced in Delhi or other metropolitan cities.

C) That it is most humbly put forth before this Hon’ble Court that as per
the entrenched postulation laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in
“Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9
SCC 99,” “Kamala v. KT Eshwara SA, (2008) 12 SCC 661,” &
“Shakti Bhog Food Industries v. Central Bank of India, 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 482,” : it is settled law that while deciding an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the plaint should be seen and the
defence which is set up/intended to be set up by the defendant is of no
relevance; and while addressing this instant application under reply,
 this Hon’ble Court may kindly take the said entrenched postulation
into its account.

D) That the present application is also not maintainable as per the

observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v.
Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614,” wherein it has been held that:

“it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or passage from the

plaint and read the same in isolation. It is the substance and not
merely the form which has to be looked into. The plaint must
be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of
words and only if on a meaningful reading it is found that the
suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless, the power to reject
the plaint must be exercised.”

E) That it is also put forth before this Hon’ble Court that it a settled
proposition of law that “Disputed questions cannot be decided at the
time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC”
and the same proposition has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in “Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn.,
(2005) 7 SCC 510.” In the light of the above said settled proposition
of law, if it is assumed that there is a difference in ascertaining the
value of the suit property by the disputing parties, the same shall be
construed to be a triable issue and the said difference in valuation
cannot be interpreted as a ground of dismissal by any smidgen of
circumstance, whatsoever.

F) That it is also most humbly submitted that it is well settled that Section
7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 stipulates that the Plaintiff is free
to make his own estimate under the reliefs sought in the plaint and
 such valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has to be
ordinarily accepted by the courts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “Tara
Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj”, through “Sebaits
Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad, (1987) 4 SCC 69”, has
observed as under: -
“4… It is now well settled by the decisions of this Court in
Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar [AIR 1958 SC 245
: 1958 Mad LJ (Cri) 148 : 1958 SCR 1024] and
Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar
[(1980) 1 SCC 616 : AIR 1979 SC 989 : (1979) 3 SCR 385] that
in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under
Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free
to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint
and such valuation both for the purposes of court-fee and
jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted.

Further, it is most humbly propounded before this Hon’ble Court that

despite of the above stated settled proposition that the “Plaintiff is
free to make his own estimate under the reliefs sought in the plaint
and such valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has to
be ordinarily accepted by the courts,” it is submitted that the valuation
of suit that has been ascertained by the plaintiff in this instant suit is
based on the value/price of the suit property that is in consonance
with the value/price at which defendant no. 1 had presented the sale
deed in favour of Ms. Heena Tyagi (his illicit second wife) before the
office of Sub-Registrar VI-A, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rohini, Delhi.

G) That it is also stated that the present suit in very well within the
limitation prescribed by law as the cause of action arose in year 2022,
 when defendant no. 1 presented a sale deed in favour of his illicit
second wife namely, Ms. Heena Tyagi, before Sub-Registrar – VI-A,
Delhi. Thus, there is no question of this suit being barred by limitation
as the same was filed within due limitation period, prescribed by law.

H) That the application of the defendant is liable to be dismissed as the

defendant has merely made bald averments without any substantial
basis, so as to maneuver and ploy the proceedings of this Hon’ble
Court and mislead it, in order to waste the prestigious judicial time
and thus, the application under reply is liable to be dismissed
outrightly, with hefty cost.

PARA-WISE REPLY:

1) That the contents of para no. 1 of the application under reply, as stated
are false, wrong and thus, denied in toto. It is specifically denied that
the defendant has filed a written statement which contains the facts
and arguments in detail. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 is
habitual of twirling and twisting the real factum so as to mislead the
court, merely to illicitly obtain favorable orders and the same can be
evident from the fact that defendant no. 1 presented a frivolous
affidavit on last date of hearing, before this Hon’ble Court and the
plaintiff craves the leave of this court to fortify the said fact that said
affidavit was frivolous at apposite stage of this instant case.

2) That the contents of para no. 2 of the application under reply, as stated
are false, wrong and thus, denied unless, accepted herein after. It is
specifically denied that the present suit is hopelessly barred by time.
It is accepted that plaintiff is claiming a right in the suit property
because the money for its purchase was paid from a joint account. It
is accepted that the property was purchased in April, 2016. It is denied
that as the property was not bought in the name of the Defendant only,
the cause of action for seeking such a declaration arose at the time of
its purchase. It is most humbly submitted that there is a fiduciary
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and defendant
no. 1 very cunningly manipulated and convinced the plaintiff that he
needs the suit property to be registered in his singular name, so as to
enable him to earn more by arranging funds for a company namely
‘M/s Sumeru Processors Pvt. Ltd.’, which in turn will ensure the better
future of the family. It is accepted that plaintiff claims it arose in 2022
when the Defendant was trying to transfer the property to a third
person. But it is submitted that astoundingly, the said third person
happens to be the illicit second wife of defendant no. 1. It is denied
that the said transfer does not give rise to a fresh cause of action to
seek the relief of declaration. It is most humbly submitted that the
plaintiff and defendant no. 1 entered into a MOU dated 10/08/2020,
wherein, defendant no. 1 undertook to transfer the suit property in
name of the son of plaintiff and defendant no.1 and the said MOU still
subsists and the actual cause of action arose when plaintiff tried to
alienate the suit property instead of transferring the same in the name
of their son. It is denied that the said relief could at best have been
sought in 2018 when the parties started living separately. It is admitted
that the said relief could have been sought when it is alleged the
Defendant did not comply with the terms of the MOU dated
10.08.2020 wherein the suit property had to be transferred to the son
of Plaintiff, but it is submitted that the said MOU still continues to
subsist as it doesn’t iterate any cessation date. In this regard it is
submitted that for the sake of arguments only, if it is considered that
 cause of action for filing the suit arose in 2020, even then the present
suit has been filed within the stipulated limitation period. It is admitted
that in para 1 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff submits that the dispute
between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 arose due to matrimonial
discord, but the plaintiff and defendant kept on mending their relations
on one pretext or the other, which is why they went to Singapore for
new year of 2019. It is submitted that the contents of preliminary
submissions and objections stated herein above may kindly also be
read as reply to this instant para and are not repeated for the sake of
brevity.

3) That the contents of para no. 3 of the application under reply, as stated
are false, wrong and thus, denied in toto. It is specifically denied that
the present suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC as the
requisite amount of court fee has not been affixed on the plaint. It is
denied that the Defendant No.1 is admittedly the sole owner of the
property. It is also denied that the Plaintiff is not in actual or symbolic
possession of the property. It is the matter of record that the suit
property is rented out and is also admitted by defendant no. 1 and thus,
there is no need to file any proof whatsoever of receipt of any rent
from a tenant of the said property. It is denied that the value of the
property is more than Rs. 8 Crores on which a court fee of Rs. 8 Lakhs
is payable. It is submitted that the contents of preliminary submissions
and objections stated herein above may kindly be read as reply to this
instant para and are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

Reply to Prayer Clause:

That the contents of the Prayer clause of the present suit is wrong being
illegal, frivolous, inept and misconceived and thus denied vehemently
and opposed in the lights of averment and objections made hereinabove.
It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 is not at all entitled for any relief
of whatsoever nature from this Hon’ble Court in view of the detailed
submissions made hereinabove. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1
has failed to place any substantive evidence in support of its contention,
hence, the present application under reply is liable to be dismissed.

PRAYER

a) Consequently, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble

Court that the present application under reply may kindly be dismissed
with exemplary cost being false, frivolous and based on baseless ground.

b) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble court deemed fit and proper, may
kindly be allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.
1 in the interest of justice.

DATE: 25/11/2024 PLAINTIFF

PLACE: DELHI
THROUGH

ACQUITY LAW ASSOCIATES

COUNSELS FOR DEFENDANTS
(RAJEEV BANSAL & VIBHOR BHATIA)
ADVOCATES
303, H-6 AGGARWAL TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI-34
8377998979
[email protected]
 IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJRANI, LD. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURTS, NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

CS NO. 45 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

MS. KRISHNA CHOUDHARY ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
MR. NIRAJ JHA & ANR. ...DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Krishna Choudhary W/o Sh. Niraj Jha, D/o Sh. Karan Singh Narwal, R/o
KU-04, Second Floor, Pitampura, Delhi – 110034, aged about 39 years do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. The deponent is the plaintiff in the above said suit and is well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the suit and is
competent to swear this affidavit before this Hon’ble Court.

2. That accompanying reply to application under order VII rule 11 of

CPC, 1908 has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions,
contents of which have been read over by me and I understood the
same in vernacular manner, further contents are not reproduce herein
further keeping the view of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -

Verified at Delhi on this day of November, 2024 that the contents of my

above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

DEPONENT