Respondent 2_ADR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
W.P. No. 21222 of 2020 (GM-BBMP)
BETWEEN:
Mr. James Stalin,

S/o Mr.Stalin Rodrigues,
Aged about 45 years,
Businessman by profession,
Residing at No.254,
II Main Road, 4th Cross,
Frazer Town,
Bengaluru-40 ……..Petitioner
AND:
1) BBMP represented by Its

Commissioner,
BBMP Office,
N.R. Square,
Bengaluru ……. Respondent no.1
2) Mr. Wilbert Stalin,

Residing at Flat No.303,
III Floor, Victory Towers,
Lavelle Road, Bangalore .…… Respondent no.2
STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT - 2
1. In response to the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Wilbert

Stalin, Respondent No. 2, respectfully asserts that the petition lacks
merit and should be dismissed without further consideration. The
Petitioner has failed to establish any legal or equitable claim to the flat
in question, as all transactions and documents regarding ownership
and possession have been exclusively executed in the name of
Respondent No. 2. The assertions made by the Petitioner regarding
financial contributions and equitable interests are unsubstantiated
and do not find support within the prevailing legal statutes. Therefore,
Respondent No. 2 contends that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit
and should be summarily dismissed.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the flat in question, Flat No. 303, III
Floor, Victory Towers, Lavelle Road, Bangalore, was legally and
validly transferred to Respondent No. 2, Mr. Wilbert Stalin, by way of
an Agreement of Transfer dated 21-12-2011. The BBMP has duly
recognized and regularized the allotment of the flat in the name of
Respondent No. 2 after thorough verification of all relevant documents
and compliance with the necessary legal procedures, as mandated by
the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
3. The Petitioner's claim of contributing Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the

purchase of the flat is not substantiated by any documentary evidence.
The Agreement of Transfer and all associated financial transactions
were conducted exclusively by Respondent No. 2. The principles of
constructive trust and equitable interest invoked by the Petitioner are
not applicable in this instance, as the Petitioner has failed to provide
any legal or contractual basis for his claim, thus rendering it legally
untenable.
4. The eviction order issued by the BBMP on 15-04-2019 was executed

following the due process of law. The BBMP conducted a
comprehensive investigation and provided adequate notice to all
concerned parties, including Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner was
fully cognizant of the eviction proceedings and had ample opportunity
to present his case before the appropriate authorities. Therefore, his
failure to do so cannot be construed as a violation of natural justice,
as all procedural requirements were duly adhered to in accordance
with the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
5. Respondent No. 2 has maintained continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the flat since its purchase in 2011. The Petitioner's
assertions of joint possession and financial contribution are devoid of
merit and contradict the factual evidence on record. The Petitioner has
not provided any credible evidence to substantiate his claim of
continuous contribution towards the maintenance and improvement
of the flat, thereby failing to establish a legitimate basis for his
purported rights or interests in the property.
6. The legal principles and precedents cited by the Petitioner, including

the case of Subhodh Kumar Gupta v. Krishna Gupta (2012) and
other related case laws, do not support the Petitioner's claims in the
present case. The provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and the
principles of equity invoked by the Petitioner are inapplicable, as there
exists no evidence of any constructive trust or joint investment
agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.
Consequently, the Petitioner has failed to establish any legitimate
right, title, or interest in the flat that would warrant judicial
intervention in this matter.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and

authorities cited, respondent 2 respectfully prays the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka to:
1. Dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Mr. James Stalin,
as it lacks any merit and fails to demonstrate any legal or equitable
basis.
2. Affirm the regularization of the flat allotment in Favor of

Respondent no. 2, Mr. Wilbert Stalin, as validly recognized by the
BBMP.
3. Grant any further reliefs deemed appropriate by this hon'ble court

in the interests of justice and equity, including but not limited to:
A. A declaration affirming Respondent No. 2's sole ownership of

the flat in question, based on the valid agreement of transfer and
recognition by the BBMP.
B. An order directing the petitioner to cease any further litigation

or claims regarding the subject property, in light of the court's
adjudication.
C. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems just and
necessary to resolve the dispute fairly and equitably, based on the
facts and circumstances of the case.
Date: 10 Jun 2024

Place: Bangalore Advocate for Respondent no. 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
W.P. No. 21222 of 2020 (GM-BBMP)
BETWEEN:
Mr. James Stalin,

Residing at No.254,
II Main Road, 4th Cross,
Frazer Town,
Bengaluru-40 ……..Petitioner
AND:
1) BBMP represented by Its

Commissioner,
BBMP Office,
N.R. Square,
Bengaluru ……. Respondent no.1
2) Mr. Wilbert Stalin,

Residing at Flat No.303,
III Floor, Victory Towers,
Lavelle Road, Bangalore .…… Respondent no.2
VERIFING AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Wilbert Stalin, that Respondent No.2 in the

above said case, here by state on oath and swear to this
affidavit, which is as follow,
1. I am the Respondent No.2 in the above said case
and I know the facts of the case.
2. I state that whatever stated in para 1 to 6 in the
accompanied statement of objection is true and correct
to the fact of my knowledge belief and information.
3. I state that the document examined with the
objection statement (if any) are true copies of original
documents.
Whatever stated above is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, belief and information.
Date: 10 Jun 2024

Place: Bangalore
Identified by Advocate Sworn before me

Respondent 2_ADR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent 2_ADR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent 2_ADR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

W.P. No. 21222 of 2020 (GM-BBMP)

Mr. James Stalin,

1) BBMP represented by Its

2) Mr. Wilbert Stalin,

1. In response to the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Wilbert

3. The Petitioner's claim of contributing Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the

4. The eviction order issued by the BBMP on 15-04-2019 was executed

6. The legal principles and precedents cited by the Petitioner, including

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and

2. Affirm the regularization of the flat allotment in Favor of

3. Grant any further reliefs deemed appropriate by this hon'ble court

A. A declaration affirming Respondent No. 2's sole ownership of

B. An order directing the petitioner to cease any further litigation

Date: 10 Jun 2024

W.P. No. 21222 of 2020 (GM-BBMP)

Mr. James Stalin,

1) BBMP represented by Its

2) Mr. Wilbert Stalin,

I, Mr. Wilbert Stalin, that Respondent No.2 in the

Date: 10 Jun 2024

Identified by Advocate Sworn before me

You might also like