Dear Sir, My name Syed Ameer
I have Purchased a land (8000.Sqft) around 3years before from one Person Mr. Jawakar. There near Portion land (7000.Sqft) also belongs to my mother Mrs.Fathima Begam.Now we have started Construction in between Center portion of my land and my mother land ( house construction area 1800 S.ft. only).
We have all the legal documents as per land registration department to show our ownership.
When we have started construction Mr. Jawakar’s Elder brother Mr.Mohamed Ashraf file a case against me ,
Note : 1)Mr. Jawahar property total area 5 acre. I purchased only 8000 Sqft. Balance he sold another party.
2)Construction work almost 90% finished.
3) I had paid two years property tax after Purchasing the land .
4)I got patta in my name .
5)I got Plan approval for My name and my mother Name from Panchayat office . because constructed house situated in 800sqft in my mother land balance for mine.
My query:
1) here Plaintiff asking his share? Or whole property?
2) In any chance honourable court will passed order to demolise my building?
Pls give me your suggesstion
Suit Details below
In the Court of the principal Sub Court ,
O.S.No ……………….. of 2011
Mohamed Ashraf () ..Plaintiff
VS
1.Farook ()
2.Johnsa Begam ()
3.Meharunnisha ()
4.Ahmed Basha ()
5.Jawakar () ..Defendants
6.Syed Ameer ()
7.Riyaz ()
Plaint under Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C
1.Address of the Plaintiff:-
Mohamed Ashraf, S/o.J.Ahmed Ali , Muslim, aged 52 years and residing at South Street, , Tuticorin.
Address for service of summons and process ess on the plaintiff is as stated above.
2.Address of Defendants:
1.Farook ,S/o. J.Ahmed Ali, Muslim, aged 54 years and residing at…………….. Chennai.
2.Johnsa Begam,W/o.Abul Hasan, Muslim, aged 58 years and residing at………… Tirunelveli
3.Meharunnisha, W/o.Nawshad , Muslim, aged 50 years and residing at ………….. Chennai.
4.Ahmed Basha, S/o.J.Ahmed Ali , Muslim, aged 45 years and residing at…………. , Tuticorin.
5.Jawakar S/o. J.Ahmed Ali , Muslim, aged 43 years and residing at……………….. , Tuticorin.
6.Syed Ameer,S/o,Rizwan Shaheb,Muslim,aged 35 years and residing at………..,Tuticorin.
7.Riyaz, S/o. J.Ahmed Ali, Muslim, aged 47 years and residing at…………….. Chennai.
3.The Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 are brothers and sisters. The 1st Schedule property mentioned hereunder absolutely belongs to the mother of this plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and 7. The 2nd schedule property absolutely belong to the father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and 7.
4.The father of the plaintiff Viz.,J.Ahmed Ali died on 16.5.1978 leaving the plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 5, 7 and the mother Gousunnisha as the heirs.The said Gousunnisha died on 1.12.1996 leaving the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 as legal heirs.
The plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 are enjoying the schedule properties without any interference for a long period of time.
5. There was no partition between the legal heirs of J.Ahmed Ali as per metes and bounds.The plaintiff approached the defendants No1 to 5 and 7 for amicable partition on 1.6.2011.For which the defendants No.1 to 5 have stated that thay have sold the entire land in 1st schedule to 5th defendant (Mr.Ferozkhan) herein and the 5th defendant had sold out to the 6th defendant(Mr.Syed Ameer) even on 23.1.2007 to 12.10.2008 respectively.
6.The defendants No.1 to 5 are entitled to sell their share alone to the 6th defendant and the plaintiff had not executed any deed of sale to any one so far.The 7th defendant is not a signatory to the sale deeds dt 23.1.2007 and 12.10.2008.
7.The alleged sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff and the 6th defendant is not entitled in law for possession of 1st schedule property.unless divided or partitioned between the legal heirs of Gousunnisha by metes and bounds. The 6th defendant has stored bricks,iron rods,sand and gravel in the 1st schedule during the last week of June 2011 and the plaintiff and his son have objected to it and the plaintiff have preferred a police complaint.the police enquired the matter and have stated that it is a civil dispute.Hence they could not registered a case. The 6th defendant tried to dig pit for laying foundation which was stopped by the plaintiff with his son and neighbourers.The 6th defendant is openly alleging that by all means he will construct a building in the 1st schedule property .Hence the plaintiff has no other option except to approach this Hon’ble court for partition and separate possession of 1st schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the 6th defendant his men and agents from in any manner putting up any construction in the 1st schedule property.
8.The 2nd Schedule Property is of the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff have requested for an amicable partition for which the defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 had not answered so far. Hence the plaintiff has come forward with this suit for partitioning of the 2nd schedule property by metes and bounds and to handover separate Possession also. The plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
9.The plaintiff is entitled for 2/12 shares in the schedule properties. The 6th defendant is a man of means and have muscle power and money power and is not a law abiding citizen also.If the act of the 6th defendant is not restrained by an order of this Hon’ble Court,the plaintiff will be put to heavy loss.Hence this suit.
10.The Cause of action for the suit arose on 1.6.2011 when the plaintiff approached the defendants No.1 to 5 and 7 defendants for an amicable partition and the defendants No.1 to 5 have stated that the 1st schedule property has been sold to the 6th defendant on 12.10.2008 by the 5th defendant and defendant No.1 to 4have already sold on 23.1.2007 to the 5th defendant and during last week of June 2011 when the 6th defendant have stored sand,bricks ,iorn rods etc. in the 1st schedule property which was objected by the plaintiff and his son and the 6th defendant is openly stating that he will construct a Pucca building in the 1st schedule which is against law and which all happened within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble court.
11. The plaintiff values the claim ofRs.9,50,000/-to his share and pays a fixed court fee of Rs.750/-under sec.37(2) of tamilnadu court feesand suits valuation act for relief a) and b)at Rs.1000/-and pays court fees thereon at Rs.75.50 under sec 27 (c) of the Tamilnadu Court fees and suits Valuation Act 14/55.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass decree:
a)for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 2/12th share in the schedule properties by metes and bounds ;
b)for permanent injunction restraining the 6th defendant his men and agents from in any manner putting up any building , hut, temporary and permanent structures etc., until final decree is passed in respect of the 1st schedule property ;
c) for cost of this suit;
d)for such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstancesof this case and thus render justice.
1st Schedule property
9650 Squre meter ……………………………………………………………………. In tuticorin
2nd schedule property
48000 square meter in St.Thomas mount Chennai …………………………………………….
List of Doc Encl
1)Registered sales deed in favour of 5th defendant Dt 23.1.2007
2)Registration copy of sale deed in favour of 6th Defendant executed by 5th defendant Dt 12.10.2008
3) Photos copy at construction area where stored in iron rod, bricks ……etc.
4) Form 10(1)
5)Death certificate of Ahmed Ali
6)Death Certificate of Gousunnisha
7) Legal heirs
Signature
Advocate for plaintiff
