IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION KANPUR NAGAR

O.S. No…………………………. of 2019

Hemant Pat Singhania, adult-aged about 89 Year, son of Late Sh. Radha
Kishan Singhania resident of 84/43 Radha Kunj, Kalpi Road, Kanpur
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, 20812 …….PLAINTIFF

Versus
1. Dwarkadish Temple Trust, having its registered office at Kamla
Tower Dwarkadish Road Kanpur Nagar through Yadupati
Singhania S/o late Sh. Gaur Hari Singhania.

2. VVS Concast Ltd, having its registered office at 128/119-A, Block

K, Kidwai Nagar Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-_________ through its
director Shri Gajanand Agarwal

3. Shri. Gajanand Agarwal R/o 128/119-A, Block K, Kidwai Nagar

Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-____________
…..DEFENDANTS.

Valuation:
Court Fee Paid:

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Plaintiff named above humbly begs to submit as hereunder:

1. That Plaintiff is a Peace loving, God fearing and law-abiding

Citizen who hails from the renowned and respectable family of

this metropolis.
2. That Plaintiff’s father was Late. Shri Radha Kishan Singhania

who had breathed his last on 20.09.1973. at Kanpur.

3. That Plaintiff is the only son and heir/successor of his father

late Radha Kishan Singhania.

4. That Plaintiff’s father, amongst other, owned and possessed

certain self-earned immovable properties in his own name

being the premises no 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 situated at Tilak

Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh).

5. That Plaintiff is holding and owning aforesaid properties of his

father following the inheritance which took place in his favor

upon the death of his father Shri Radha Kishan Singhania in

an unbroken continuity without any interference by anybody.

6. That after the death of his father Plaintiff applied for the

mutation in relevant records of Kanpur Development Authority

i.e. Successor of Cawnpore Improvement Trust, but

unfortunately could not succeed since he was not able to

grease palms of the Authority.

7. That Plaintiff’s father during his lifetime and out of his

generosity, had orally permitted his immovable properties

aforesaid to be used by the Defendant No.1 for a limited

purpose to rent out the bungalows situated on the premises,

provided that the rent accruing from the rented bungalows

would be used for the purposes of managing the temple and for

carrying out other religious activities related to temple.

8. That, as such Defendant No.1 was and, is the mere custodian

of said properties without having any power or authority of

transferring and/or alienating them in any manner

whatsoever.

9. That the Defendant No.1 was created mainly to manage the

Dwarkadish Temple situate at Kamla Tower Dwarkadish Road

Kanpur Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) properly and smoothly.

10.That, in the passage of time, the Defendant No.1 without any

right or authority and, with an ulterior motive, surreptitiously

moved and got its name muted in revenue records regards

aforesaid properties of the plaintiff, previously owned by his

late father.

11.That mere mutation, if any, procured by Defendant No.1 in its

favor, in the absence of a foundation of title over the property

and, on the basis of frauds and misrepresentation, in respect

of plaintiff's property bearing the premises no. 7/97, Tilak

Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (U.P), has no presumptive value on the

title of the property.

12.That if the Plaintiff’s father Late Radha Kishan Singhania

intention was to transfer the said property to the Dwarkadhish

Temple or the trust managing it, he would have applied to the

respective authorities for transfer of the same to the temple

and/or trust, which never happened.

13.That the Defendant No.1, however in an illusionary manner

started treating aforesaid properties as its own merely on the

strength of procured and unlawful mutation aforesaid. Such

has been their disregard that the Defendant No.1 has even

gone to the extent of selling and transferring one of the

properties aforesaid bearing the premises no.7/97, Tilak

Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (U.P) in favor of defendant no 2 vide the

registered sale deed dated 27.12.2001 duly executed by

Defendant No.1 through its Managing Trustees Dr. Gaur Hari

Singhania in favour of defendant no 2 registered as Bahi

No………….Volume No…….at pages…..to…….at Serial No…….

in the office of Sub-registrar Zone……. Kanpur Nagar,

on……….

14.That for a proper and complete appreciation of the matter, the

factual relevant background of the controversy is as below:

1. That in the year 1927, the father of the Plaintiff Late Sh.

Radha Kishan Singhania purchased and acquired a piece

of land admeasuring of 3 Acres comprising of certain Plot

Nos. 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 (old Plot Nos. 14,15 and 15-A),

situated at Khalasi Lines, Cawnpore (Kanpur) Uttar

Pradesh, from the Cawnpore Improvement trust vide sale

deed dated 05.12.1927.

2. Similarly, another piece of land admeasuring the area of

about 3.48 Acre in the vicinity of above said the land was

purchased by late Lala Kamla Pat Singhania bearing the

Plot No 11, 11A 12 and 13 situated at the then Khalasi

Line vide the registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1927. Said

 late Lala Kamla Pat Singhania is the elder brother of

Plaintiff’s father;

3. After the death of Plaintiff's father and his elder brother

aforesaid the immovable properties mentioned above

were held and owned by respective legal heirs and

successors of Plaintiff’s father and of his elder brother in

the normal manner;

4. Pertinently, elder brother of plaintiff’s father had been the

Manager of Dwarkadish Temple aforesaid and he

purchased said Plot Nos. 11,11A 12 and 13 in his

capacity as Manager of Temple. On the other hand

Plaintiff’s father purchased his said Plot Nos.14,15 and

15A [now, the premises, bearing the no. 7/97, 7/96 and

7/95 situate at Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (Uttar

Pradesh] and developed them in his individual capacity

and, in furtherance thereto plaintiff’s father permitted his

said personal property bearing no. 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95

to be used and utilized by temple which the Defendant

No.1 not claims that it manages, for limited purpose of

renting out the bungalows situated at the property and

using the accruing rent for the purposes of carrying out

religious affairs of the temple only, without intending to

give any power or authority of transferring or selling it in

any manner;

5. Plaintiff after the death of his father being his only son

and the legal heir/successor, stepping into his shoes,

 acquired an entire right, title, and interests of above-

mentioned property in his favor by way of inheritance.

6. As such except what has been stated in preceding

paragraphs, the Plaintiff is holding and owning aforesaid

properties in his own vested rights and entitlement

without any interference by anybody.

7. That on 19.06.2017 the Plaintiff’s son wrote a letter to

Sh. Yadupati Singhania stating that it was brought to his

attention that the property bearing number 14, 15, 15 A

(New properties number 7/97, 7/96, 7/95) was being

sold which was given to the Defendant No.1 only for the

purposes of managing the temple and for carrying out

other religious activities related to temple.

8. Thereafter on 05.07.2017 it was informed to the son of

Plaintiff that the properties bearing number 14, 15 and

15A purchased by the Late Sh, Radha Kishan Singhania

stands mutated in the of the Defendant No.1 in the

records of Kanpur development authority and Kanpur

Nagar Nigam.

9. That again in month of October 2017 Plaintiff came to

know about wrongdoings and misdeeds of Defendant

No.1 when the Defendant No.1 was planning to sell

plaintiff's aforesaid property which is in the rightful

ownership of the Plaintiff.

10. That on 16.10.2017, 16.11.2017 plaintiff made

complaints before the learned Commissioner regarding

wrongful mutation somehow obtained by Defendant No.1.

Regretfully no action was taken upon the Plaintiff's

complaint.

11. That being aggrieved by the inaction of the City

Commissioner with regard to complete lack of procedure

followed in mutation records of the concerned property

that on 07.02.2018 the Plaintiff was opted to file a Writ

Petition No (C) No-5851 of 2018 title as "Hemantpant

Singhania Vs. State of U.P. & Ors” before the Hon’ble

High Court of ALLAHABAD.

12. That the said Writ Petition came up for hearing before

the Hon’ble Court on 19.02.2018. However, the same was

dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that

the aggrieved party may have an appropriate remedy in

civil law.

13. Subsequently, the Plaintiff had filed two (2) Right to

Information (RTI) Applications dated 14.05.2018 before

the Kanpur Nagar Nigam and the Kanpur Development

Authority enquiring as to the mutation records of the

properties bearing numbers 7/97, 7/96 and 7/95 (old

Plot Nos.14, 15 and 15-A) of Khalasi Lines, Kanpur

Nagar.

14. That the Kanpur Nagar Nigam replied to the RTI

Application on 18.08.2018 stating that as of the

 computer records in the year 2008 plots No. 7/95 and

7/96 are in the name the Defendant Trust and plot No.

7/97 is in the name of the Defendant Trust, Hema

Agrawal, and Jyothi Agrawal.

15. That upon further search and inquiries it was revealed

to plaintiff that Defendant No.1, vide the registered sale

deed dated 27.12.2001 aforesaid, had sold plaintiff's

property bearing the premises no 7/97, Tilak Nagar,

Kanpur Nagar (U.P) in favor of defendant no 2 illegally

and unauthorizedly.

16. That Defendant No.1 in its aggrandizement are looking

to construct on and seek to transfer and alienate the

remaining property of the Plaintiff.

17. That entire act and conduct of Defendant No.1 is wholly

bad and illegal and is aimed at converting the plaintiff's

property in its own use and benefit without having any

right or authority for the same.

18. That Defendant No.1 never had or has an entitlement of

constructing on the said property without the

authorization of the Plaintiff and/or to dispose of the

plaintiff's property according to its own choice. As already

submitted hereinabove, Defendant No.1 does not have

any ownership rights or domain over the property.

19. That, in all events, sale deed aforesaid made by

Defendant No.1 in favor of defendant no 2 is absolute

without any authority, illegal and the property so sold

 cannot be said and/ or claimed to have been passed in

favor transferee/defendant No 2 Accordingly the said sale

deed dated 27.12.2001 is the document non est in the

eye of law.

20. That Plaintiff discussed the matter with defendants and

apprised them with real situation of the matter and

thereby requested not to deal further with plaintiff's

properties along with the property sold under

unauthorized and unlawful sale deed 27.12.2001 but

defendants did not accede to plaintiff's request and on

the contrary threatened that since the property had been

transferred to defendant no 2 by Defendant No.1 quite

properly under the duly registered sale deed, therefore,

they along with other properties of plaintiff which had

been given to Defendant No.1 is entitled to deal with the

same according to their own choice and wish and any

interference by plaintiff is highly improper and

unwarranted and dispute, if any, could only be settled,

according to law, through intervention of competent court

and, not by any other means.

21. That, as such Defendant no 1 has no right or authority

to further deal with plaintiff's property in any manner

whatsoever since no right had or has passed in their

favor under the said sale deed dated 27.12.2001 and

entire right, title and interest of the said property still

remains with plaintiff alone. Further, Defendant No.1 is

not entitled to deal with the remaining aforesaid

 properties of the plaintiff for the purpose of selling and

transferring them.

22. That in these circumstance plaintiffs has been left with

no option except to seek asylum under this Hon'ble Court

as the Defendants are not amenable to genuine and

lawful requests of the plaintiff. Hence this suit.

23. That plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as sought herein in

his favor and against defendants and, in case, the reliefs,

as sought herein are not granted then in that event

plaintiff would suffer so irreparably which cannot be

compensated in term of money.

24. That, except this suit, the plaintiff has no other equally

efficacious remedy.

25. That plaintiff has a strong, matchless and prima facie,

case in his favor and against defendants for an award of

relief claimed herein.

26. That Plaintiff herein further crave leave of this Ld. Court

to file an appropriate legal proceeding in appropriate

Court in respect of Property bearing 7/95 and 7/96,

situated at Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

27. That the cause of action for this suit initially arose

when plaintiff's father breathed his last on 20.09.1973

Thereafter, it arose in the month of October 2017 when

plaintiff came to know about aforesaid ill intentions of

defendants. Thereafter, it arose on 19.02.2018 when the

 Plaintiff approached Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad by

way of writ petition Writ C 5851 / 2018 against inaction

on the part of learned Commissioner upon plaintiff's

aforesaid complaints regarding plaintiff's mutation and

the wrongful mutation obtained and misdeeds of

executing unauthorized sale deed of plaintiff's property

brought about by Defendant No.1 whereupon Hon'ble

High Court observed to have the appropriate remedy in

Civil Law Cause of action finally arose…..when

defendants refused to accede with lawful and genuine

requests of plaintiff as narrated in the preceding

paragraph no.21 herein. Cause of action is recurring

each day thereafter it finally arose.

28. That for the purpose of valuation and payment of court

fee this suit is valued at Rs______________________and the

total payable maximum court fee of Rs.________/-

(Rupees_____/- on relief of declaration and Rupees_____/-

on relief of Permanent Injunction) has been paid by

plaintiff.

29. That parties herein situate and carries on their

respective business here in this town at Kanpur Nagar,

therefore, this Hon'ble Court has full, pecuniary and

territorial, jurisdiction to try and dispose of this suit, on

merit, according to Law.

RELIEFS’ CLAIMED

Plaintiff, therefore, most respectfully claims following reliefs, in

the interest of justice;

a) Pass a decree for declaration declaring the sale deed executed in

favor of the Defendants in respect of property bearing No. 7/97

Tilak Nagar, Kanpur dated 27.12.2001 registered in Sub-

Registrar Office at Zone No. IInd. Kanpur Nagar as illegal, null

and void ab-intio having no legal effect.

b) The Decree of Declaration may kindly be passed in favor of

plaintiff and against defendant declaring that plaintiff is the

owner and holder of above-mentioned properties left by his

father late Radha Kishan Singhania regardless of unauthorized

and unlawful sale deed dated 27.12.2001 made by Defendant

No.1 in favor of defendant no 2 which is the documents non est

in the eye of Law.

(B). The Decree of Permanent Injunction may kindly be passed In

favor of plaintiff and against defendants suitably restraining

the defendants their agents/attorneys/ representatives etc.,

from further constructing on the said property and/or

selling, conveying or alienating aforesaid properties in any

made of manner.

(C). Any other Order or Direction, ancillary/interim and/or final,

as deemed fit and proper in favor of plaintiff and against the

defendant may also kindly be granted by this Hon'ble

Court.

(D). Cost of the suit may kindly be granted in favor of plaintiff

and against defendants.