Why exception to judges

To   My paid Counsel,

Honoured Sir, of the noble profession to instil TRUTH & JUSTICE.

Judges of the honourable courts seldom allow the appellant to speak in the court-hall, but for asking the counsel to speak.

Lawyers miss out at times valid arguable points logically to instil justice, when asked they say, we deal with many clients but for you, your only problem seeking justice for you only. Do not worry the lower courts can be influenced by the politicians, but assuring you justice will be given in the HIGH COURT.

A Case Study:Delayed objection raised to the Main Appeal, RSA160/2011 with BANGALORE HIG COURT.

     The imperative need for: Counter Objection to the paid counsel.

·        False statement given in Page 1 of their Objections that 20 guntas  were detained for their family purpose which is absolutely false.  AS THE LAYOUT FORMED WERE OF 30 PLOTS FROM 1 ACRE AND 20 GUNTAS, MOREOVER THE PLOTS PURCHASED BY CHANDRAN WERE NOS. 8 AND 9 OF THE 30 NUMBERED PLOTS. How could they say in the objections that the 20 guntas were DETAINED AND THAT WAS Plot Nos.8 & 9 and MOREOVER SAYING we have no dispute, IS UTTERLY FALSE. Please note THE SAME in the 1^st Page of the Objections to the Main Appeal, which is found fabricated, twisting the arms for suppression of facts, availing the loop holes in law, to suit the legal process. "Continueing to bring injustice to the innocent common litigant."  Thus throwing away the sanctity of the courts, from the minds of the common people. There is no sprinkle of truth being seen, but for falsifying the truth, for knocking of my hard-earned property, of 1983.

The fact is that P.K.Chandran (Plaintiffs husband, an ex-serviceman, now aged 64 years old and fragile, suffering from Hyper-tension and Diabetes) was one of the purchasers of the layout of 30  plots made on 30.05.1983, by a Sale Agreement, An Affidavit and An irrevocable G.P.A. Purchased two plots i.e. Plot No.8 and 9 for his two sons Arun and Ashok. Sales consideration was received and put the appellant’s husband in possession by way of Affidavit. Hence, Vendors have put the purchaser in possession by way of Affidavit and an irrevocable G.P.A. on duly receiving the Sales consideration.It is not out of place to mention that registration were stopped during that period and hence sales consideration those days, were on the strength of AN IRREVOCABLE G.P.A. AND AFFIDAVIT.

·        The Real Estate Agent was Dr. Narasimhamurthy, who was a well known local medical practitioner of that area(Magdi Road, Gollarapalya Village). who then stood as the mediator, to help the Vendors, who could translate  into English, to those who were not proficient in Kannada Language, which Ex.serviceman CHANDRAN as Plaintiff, already expressed in the lower Courts (Jr.Divn.)O.S.365/2004.

O.S.341/2004     PARTITION SUIT.

Partition suit filed by the said Respondants, Chikkanna, Rama & Laxmana, Case No.O.S.No.341/2004* date deliberately not mentioned in objections- made, which was an awakening after 21 long years, which please note. While courts do not attend beyond 5 year period).  All this after the Plaintiffs made a Police Complaint in the nearest Tavarekere Police Station (F.I.R. No.0055 dated 24.03. 2004 and charge sheet drawn) for the respondents having trespassed and removed the fencing of my site (Plot Nos.8&9) and erected a katcha shed by overnight. This incident was reported instantly to all Police and Civil administrative authorities.

·        Please do also note that owner of Plot Nos. 8 & 9 (Plaintiff) was the only one, who was made a party, leaving the other owners of the 30 plots, as the rest  were local residents, but self an ex-serviceman who once came forward to lay our life for the nation to safeguard the whole nation from external threats.. Case O.S.365/2004 filed by the Plaintiff against the respondents on the advice of IGP Rabindranath Tagore IPS, since said to be of civil nature. Do also please note that the case-numbering was also delayed, on account of my being shunted to bring all the original documents and submit for acceptance, which were in Bank Safe Deposit in Chennai. In the meanwhile the Partition Suit (O.S.341/2004, filed as though they filed the suit first,i.e. by the accused, making me alone a party as the plot owner to whom the elder brothers of the accused have been the Vendor, while it would be strange to note that ‘30 plots laid in a layout of 1 acre and 20 Guntas’. The Lower Court ought to have removed my name from the Partition-Suit, orelse included all the other purchasers as well.The lower court should have also taken into account of the time-delay of 21 long years i.e. after purchase, besides other purchasers left untouched, since they being local residents, while self an ex-serviceman,served the Corps of Signals, Indian Army, though staying in Chennai, (who once came forward to lay my life to the nation, as an INDIAN, tosafeguard the nation from external threats). Do also please note that my father and elder brother was also an ex-serviceman, father who served the Nations Indian Army, in Artillery Corps, a receipient of Long Service and Meritorious Medal, elder brother also an ex-serviceman who served the Indian Navy. Though from a small family, three of us served the nation in the most disciplined manner, as a law abiding citizen.  It would be the greatest sin, if the innocents have to live with such injustices, owing to poor maintenance of Law & Order. Self being shunted to Bangalore and back to Chennai since 2004, attending court hearings in Bangalore. Harassed and humiliated with hardships, incurring unnecessary money, efforts and the valuable time, attending the suit filed by me and as well as the  Partition-Suit filed by the accused, to which I am unnecessarily dragged. Accused going scot-free. You would agree that  the Lower Court have therefore instead encouraged the accused for wrong acts and for others to follow in taking ‘Law into their hands.’ Any law abiding citizen would be disgusted in the state of the affairs of Law and Order in the country and now in the stage of judiciary. 

IMPORTANT is that it is a JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - HUF- HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. It is a hereditary property. Please note: * Late Eeriah has two sons   ie.Late 1. Eeranna and 2. Late Kempiah. 

Late Eeranna has one son by name 1.Mr.Krishnappa while Late Kempiah has five sons i.e.   2.(a)  Thamayanna and  2(b). Eeranna while the Respondents 2(c). Chikkanna, 2(d). Rama and 2(e).Laxmana. These six (6) members numbered above, are the legitimate legal-heirs.

·        * During the time of my purchase, * Chikkanna's where- abouts were not known but Rama and Laxmana were minors, obviously left-out in the Sale of the 30 plots layout as per HUF Succession Act. Hindu Undivided Family.

·        Mr. Chandran  purchased from Krishnappa, Thamayanna and Eeranna(* three signatories). BUT respondents not included Mr.Krishnappa deliberately, not made him a party, though he was  a bonafide seller, which itself is a suppression of facts. *  The Law and order in the state, have encouraged the intruders into my client (P.K.Chandran)’s site who had encroached, pulled out the fencing and erected a katcha shed overnight, with FORCEFUL POSSESSION  and gradually letting it out for rent.  Despite “Statusquo” announced in the court-hall, the respondents went ahead to complete the construction of the shortcomings, owing to have done in a hurry, besides obtained EB connection, erecting windows for human living, when pointed out that the katcha-shed was not for human living as there is only one entrance door, to Katcha Shed without window nor any other outlet. Plaintiff is financially constrained at the moment, as my sons have not ventured to sea, owing to the bad situation on the high-seas owing to PIRACY hoping the situation would improve. PIRACY  now known to the public through the media. 

The fact is that P.K.Chandran (Plaintiffs husband, an ex-serviceman, senior citizen, now aged 64 years old and fragile, a hyper-tension and diabetic patient, since 1993) has been put to lot of hardships while fighting for truth and justice since 2004, the honourable court  should consider payment of an Adhoc interim relief, as the respondents are applying all delay tactics and deliberately dragging on the case, IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE Plaintiff gives up and they knock-off my property.      P K CHANDRAN