Filing a case for cancellation of nonexistant property documents
rajesh makol
(Querist) 08 March 2011
This query is : Open
PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CASE FOR ANSWERING:
A. COURT FEE IS TO BE PAID ON WHICH PROPERTY VALUE - ONLY EXTENDED PORTION OR BOTH THE ACTUAL AND EXTENDED PORTION?
B. CAN A RELIEF FOR REMOVAL OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WHICH WAS BASED ON FRADULENT PROPERTY PAPERS BE PRAYED BEFORE THE COURT?
C. WHAT IS THE MOST PROBABLE OUTCOME OF THE CASE?
D. SHALL THE PLANTIFF COMPROMISE WITH THE DEFENDENT IF THE COURT ASKS FOR MEDIATION?
E. IS THERE A NEED TO FILE SEPARATE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT?
F. WHAT OTHER SUGGESTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE?
** THE CASE IS TO BE FILED IN A DAY OR TWO.ITS URGENT.
That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff purchased the flat bearing No. B – IV/123C, DDA Janta Flat, xyz Road, and when it was informed by the seller that the possession of the extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff cannot be give as the tenant occupying the same has obtained a stay order from the court of law and when it was assured that the needful is being done in the matter and soon the tenant will vacate the said extended portion and thereafter the same shall be handed over the to the plaintiff and when no information with regard to the alleged litigation was divulged to the plaintiff as mentioned here in above, it also arose when in March 2009 the plaintiff came to know that the said tenant has sold the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff as mentioned herein above to one Shri Avtar Singh, claiming it to be his own property and narrating its address as to be bearing No. B – IV/123D, DDA Janta Flat, it also arose when coming to know about the said sale transaction the plaintiff rigorously inquired about the same when it was revealed that the said tenant claimed to be owner of the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, having purchased the same from one Shri Charanjit Singh, who intern claimed to have purchased the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff from the original allotee and showed the photocopies of some papers in this regard, and when the plaintiff and her husband confronted the said Shri Sushil Arora with the complete chain through which the plaintiff had purchased her flat and when it was represented that the said documents in possession of the plaintiff are not genuine and the complete chain is with him and when the said Shri Sushil Arora did not handover any document in this regard, it also arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff became suspicious about the deal and started making enquires and when one Shri Avtar Singh took over the possession of the suit property claiming himself to be a tenant under one Shri Mathur, it also arose when no further identity of the said Shri Mathur was disclosed and when the said Shri Avtar Singh vacated the suit property/extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff in June 2010 and when the plaintiff and her husband got the electricity connection feeding electricity of the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, disconnected, it also arose when the defendant claiming to be owner of the extended portion/suit property bearing No. B – IV/123D, DDA Janta Flat, Lawrence Road, Delhi – 110035, on 29.06.2010 produced an agreement to sell in respect of the same before the electricity department for getting the electricity connection restored to the said extended portion on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, it also arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the plaintiff for the purpose to ascertain the legality of the said extended portion/suit property on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff filed RTI applications with the DDA, MCD, Sub-registrar, Rohini and when she received replies form the said departments as aforesaid, it also arose when the plaintiff filed a police complaint of the fraud been played by the defendant. As the defendant is claiming her title on the basis of forged, fabricated and baseless documents which do not has nay legal value in the eyes of law and has further failed to stop claiming her ownership in the said extended portion/suit property up and above on the roof of the flat of the plaintiff, the said cause of action still subsists.
22. That for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued as under: -
(i) for the of relief of declaration for declaring the alleged agreement to sell dated _________ as null and void the suit is valued for Rs._________/- on which a requisite court fee of Rs._______/- is being paid
(ii) for the relief of possession the suit is valued at Rs. _________ on which a requisite court fee of Rs._______ is being paid
