Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

A Suit for Partition and permanent Injunction

Document Cited in Related
Vincent
Updated atMarch 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION,................

AT................

Shri RAN______ (Full Name)___

age....... years, occupation -.................

Address.....................................

Plaintiff

Versus

  1. Shri AJN _(Full Name)________

    age....... years, occupation -................

  2. Shri DAN________ (Full Name)_____

    age....... years, occupation -..................

    Address......................................

    Defendants

    A SUIT FOR PARTITION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION

    The plaintiff above named submits this plaint, praying to state as follows:

  3. The Pedigree : That the pedigree is as follows:

    AJN (Defendant No. 1)

    RAN DAN

    (Plaintiff) (Defendant No. 2)

    That the defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, while the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff are full/real brothers.

  4. Description of Properties : All that that piece and parcel of lands situate within the Registration Division & District................, Sub-Division & Taluka Khed within the local limits of the................ Zilla Parishad, revenue village............................ as detailed below:

  5. That all the above mentioned were ancestral, and therein, the plaintiff had undivided l/3rd share.

  6. That the plaintiff is working as a Deputy Engineer, and because of his employment, he is required to run from place to place, and hence, the properties are managed and looked after by the defendants only.

  7. That taking the benefit of this position, the defendants started acting in such a manner that the plaintiff be put to the maximum loss, and, accordingly, for no need or legal necessity, the defendant No. 1, at the instigation of the defendant No. 2, sold out, on the land properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 above, and again sold out the land property mentioned at Sr. No. 4 above, on

  8. That in fact, the defendant No. 1 does not have any need for money, and the income from the ancestral properties is much more than his needs.

  9. That the defendant No. 2 is also employed as a teacher, and his salary itself is sufficient to meet his expenses, and, as such, there was neither any legal necessity, nor was there any benefit of the estate, and hence, the defendant No. 1 did not have any right, title or interest to transfer the said properties without the plaintiffs consent, and hence, those sale-deeds are not valid and binding on the share of the plaintiff in the said properties.

  10. That the properties at Sr. Nos. 1 and 4 have been sold by the defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
Navigation index

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT