IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION KANPUR NAGAR

Suit. No…………………………. of 2019

Hemant Pat Singhania …PLAINTIFF

Versus

Dwarkadish Temple Trust and Ors. …DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER

XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC

Sir,

For the facts and reasons disclosed in the affidavit which forms part of

this application, it is respectfully prayed that the Plaintiff application for

Permanent and Injunction may kindly be allowed and the Decree of

Permanent Injunction may kindly be passed in favour of Plaintiff and

against Defendants suitably restraining the Defendants their

agents/attorneys/representative etc., from further constructing on the

said property and/or selling, conveying or alienating aforesaid properties

in any made of manner.

DATED: 06-04-2019

ADVOCATES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION KANPUR NAGAR

Suit. No…………………………. of 2019

Hemant Pat Singhania …PLAINTIFF

Versus

Dwarkadish Temple Trust and Ors. …DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF HEMANT PAT SINGHANIA, adult son of Late Sh.

Radha Kishan Singhania Resident of 84/43 Radha Kunj, Kalpi Road

Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-208012 …..DEPONENT

I, Hemant Pat Singhania, above named deponent do hereby takes oath

and state as under:

1. That the deponent is the only son and heir/successor of his father

late Radha Kishan Singhania and is well conversant with the facts

of the case deposed to herein below.

2. That the deponent is a Peace loving, God fearing and law-abiding

Citizen who hails from the renowned and respectable family of this

metropolis.

3. That the deponent’s father was Late. Shri Radha Kishan Singhania

who had breathed his last on 20.09.1973. at Kanpur.

4. That the deponent’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 the deponent 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 deponent 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 deponent’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 deponent, 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 deponent’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 proper and complete appreciation of the present

application, the factual relevant background of the controversy is

as below:
1. That in the year 1927, the father of the deponent 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. That 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

deponent’s father;

3. That after the death of deponent's father and his elder

brother aforesaid the immovable properties mentioned

above were held and owned by respective legal heirs and

successors of deponent’s father and of his elder brother

in the normal manner;

4. That the elder brother of deponent’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

deponent’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 deponent’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. That the Deponent 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. That as such except what has been stated in preceding

paragraphs, the deponent 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 deponent made

complaints before the learned Commissioner regarding

wrongful mutation somehow obtained by Defendant No.1.

Regretfully no action was taken upon the deponent'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 deponent 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. That after the dismissal of the above-mentioned Writ

Petition deponent 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 deponent that Defendant No.1, vide the registered sale

deed dated 27.12.2001 aforesaid, had sold deponent'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 the Defendant No.1 in its aggrandizement are

looking to construct on and seek to transfer and alienate

the remaining property of the deponent.

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

wholly bad and illegal and is aimed at converting the

 deponent’s property in its own use and benefit without

having any right or authority for the same.

18. That the Defendant No.1 never had or has an

entitlement of constructing on the said property without

the authorization of the deponent and/or to dispose of

the deponent'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 the deponent discussed the matter with

defendants and apprised them with real situation of the

matter and thereby requested not to deal further with

deponent's properties along with the property sold under

unauthorized and unlawful sale deed 27.12.2001 but

defendants did not accede to deponent'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 deponent 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 deponent 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 the Defendant no 1 has no right or authority to

further deal with deponent'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 deponent alone. Further, Defendant No.1 is

not entitled to deal with the remaining aforesaid

properties of the deponent for the purpose of selling and

transferring them.

22. That in these circumstance deponents 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 deponent.

 23. That under the circumstances narrated herein, it is just

and equitable that the deponent’s application for

permanent injunction against the Defendant may kindly

be allowed in favour of the deponent and against the

Defendants.

Verification