IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE JUNIOR DIVISION AT

(PCMC Akurdi)
RCS NO . /2015

Mr. Muhammad kutubuddin Shaikh

Age :- Adult , Occupation :- Business
R/at :- A-7 Sai Residency near Nirankari
Satsang Bhavan Vijaynagar Kalewadi Pune 17

PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Main building Bombay -Pune Highway
Pimpri Pune-17.
2. Assistant Commissioner (Property Tax)
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Main building Bombay -Pune Highway
Pimpri Pune-17.
3. Administration Officer
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation
Main building Bombay -Pune Highway
Pimpri Pune-17.
4. Shri Sohanlal Ramkhilawan Yadav
Age: - Adult, Occupation: - Business
R/at: - Baldevnagar Pimpri Pune 17
DEFENDANTS

Suit of Declaration, Permanent

Injunction and Damages valued
at Rs As per Section
Subsection of the Bombay
Court fees Act ..
Plaintiff most respectfully Submit herewith

1. Property Description: - All that is structure erected on

land bearing Survey no .CTS no bearing
located in Zone no 7 Gut no 3 Bearing Property no 447 at
Pimpri Colony within the geographical limits of Pimpri
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation admeasuring area
ground floor ., area First floor . And area
Second floor . Out of which only at ground floor the
Strip of undivided and indivisible structure admeasuring
area 7X43 total admeasuring area 301 sq.ft

bearing

boundaries as follows
East
West
North
South
Hereinafter referred as Suit property for the sake of
convenience.

2. Plaintiff Submits that Defendant no 1 is statutory

authority established by law, defendant no 2 and 3 are
public servant working for defendant no 1 and Defendant
no 4 is private individual. Plaintiff being aggrieved by the
acts of the Defendants have filed present suit and have

categorically sought relief in this suit against all the

defendants as detailed hereunder in prayer clause.

3. Plaintiff Submits that he is De Jure and De Facto

owner and Possessor of the suit property since ..
year and his name is recorded as owner in Records of
Defendant no 1 since . further Plaintiff Submits
that he has been paying property tax of the suit property
to the Defendant no 1 which is matter of record.

4. Plaintiff submits that he had purchased suit property

from Mr..vide Sale deed registered in the
office of sub registrar haveli no 5 bearing document no
1502/1994 on 15/03/1994 and the name of plaintiff is
recorded in the records of the defendant no 1 and since
then Plaintiff is paying electricity bill, water bill to
defendant no 1 and property tax as well to defendant
no1.
5. Plaintiff submits that he had rented out the suit
property to the geetanjali hospital from . To
. And thereafter he had rented out the suit
property to Anjali Hospital after carrying out the
construction of the first and second floor since
6. Plaintiff submits that his daughter is also running the
STD Booth in the said premises at the ground floor since
. And hence there is no premise vacant in the
property.
7. Plaintiff submits that on 14/11/2014 on e of the
tenant wished to start the medical store for which he
applied for the drug license in drug office wherein the
defendant no 2 raised the objection stating that he is the
owner of the suit property. Further this fact of objection
was communicated by the tenant to the Plaintiff wherein
my client enquired at the office of defendant no1 with
defendant no 3 wherein he was told that at ground floor

the area owned by him is 559sq.ft instead of 860 sq.ft

Plaintiff was shocked to hear that wherein he requested
the inspection of the assessment register wherein he
viewed that the 301 sqft area of ground floor was illegally
transferred in the name of defendant no4 in the tax
assessment register
8. Plaintiff submits that there after Plaintiff filed RTI
application on 27/11/2014 wherein he had received
following documents from the office of defendant no1 by
the defendant no 2 and 3 which were as follows
a. Application for the tax assessment on new
property
b. Affidavit
c. Tax assessment list
d.
e. special notice of tax assessment
f. Application of objection by plaintiff dated
16//2/2008
g. Tax Assessment hearing letter
h. details of hearing conducted on 14/3/2008.
I . Survey report
j. property tax assessment order dated 29/7/2008
k. proposal of 2012 -2013 and details of letter
communication
L. proposal

on

the

basis

of Application

of

defendant no 4 for transfer of property bearing

7/3/447
M. Application of defendant no 4
N. consent letter on the 100 Rs Stamp paper.
O. Electricity bill of the defendant no 4 residence

P. list of tax assessment of the year 2008 and

2009
Q. list of tax assessment of the year 2012 and
2013
R. notice for the transfer of the property
S.

letter

about

transfer

of

property

dated

15/08/2012
9.

Plaintiff

submits

that

after

inspection

of

the

documents provided for by the Application under Right to

information act it is clear that Application for the transfer
of the property wherein there is specifically mentioned
that for the transfer by the sale the required documents
list does not contains Sammatipatra (Consent letter) .
further Plaintiff submits that the transfer without the
registered document is void ab initio and same is not
done as per the rules laid down for the transfer but
defendant no 1 to 3 have went out

of the way and

transferred the said suit property without following the

due process of law for the best reasons known to them.
10. Plaintiff submits that considering the application of
the defendant no 4 it is also learned that the property
transferred vide application dated does not even contain
the boundaries of the property transferred nor there is
any required document s annexed to the application nor
are the documents known to be given to defendant no 1
to 3. The Application form for the transfer of suit property
is incomplete and does not contain the required details
and thus most of the columns of the application are
empty thus it is witnessed that Defendant no 1 to 3 have
unlawfully transferred the suit property to defendant no
4 without compliance of the necessary instrument of
transfer nor conducting the survey of the suit property
which is essential part of effecting the transfer and new
tax assessment.

11. Plaintiff submits that despite of the transfer done by

the defendant no 1 to 3 in their records my client is in
exclusive possession of the suit property. And is paying
all the outgoings of the suit property

12. Plaintiff submits that consent letter dated

given by the defendant no 4 to defendant no 1to 3 for
recording his name in records of

defendant no 1 is not

registered hence the transfer is illegal as it does not

create any right in his favor. Further Plaintiff submits
that samatipatra dated seems to be forged one as
the signature on it is not the same of the plaintiff so the
document is bogus sign and seal of the notary is also
seems to be forged as the date of document and the noted
no of the document has discrepancy.
13 . Plaintiff submits that he had very friendly relations
with

the

corporator

Mr.

Ramadhar

Dhariya

and

defendant no 4 and on the other hand Mr. Dhariya is

your relative and had good hold over the officials of
defendant no 1 so the Plaintiff use to get all the work in
the office of defendant no 1 done though him and he use
to make documentary compliance.
14. Plaintiff submits that in October 2010 he was
exorbitantly charged property tax Rs 41134/- hence to
get it reduced and get correct amount he met Mr.
Ramadhar Dhariya where and told about his problem
and asked him to help him then Mr. Dhariya went to the
office of defendant no 1 there he enquired and defendant
no 1 to 3 accepted the mistake in charging the property
tax hence they asked him to submit the sammatipatra for
reducing the tax wrongly charged. Further Plaintiff
submits

that

Mr,

Dhariya

told

that

we

will

get

sammatipatra made from advocate you just need to sign

rest he will take care of and appointed defendant no 4 his
relative to get it done and thereafter submit in the office
of defendant no1 for further process

15. Plaintiff submits that thereafter on 25 th October 2010

defendant no 4 obtained stamp paper of Rs 100/through Mrs Tilekar the first name of whose is missing.
Thereafter he had drafted sammatipatra wherein the
exact area of the subject matter of sammatipatra itself is
not visible, and the reason mentioned therein is false and
incomplete, there is nothing related to the possession of
the area intended to be recorded in the name of
defendant no 4, signature of the plaintiff was obtained at
11th hour in hurry without giving him the opportunity to
read

the

contents

therein

and

Plaintiff

signed

sammatipatra on the basis of trust between Plaintiff and

Mr, Dhariya and the Defendant no 4 thus Defendant no 4
got ready the forged and false document and got it notary
registered wherein the document was noted in 2010 or
2011 is disputed hence the documents is bogus and
forged further the seal and signature of the notary also
seems to be forged.
16 Plaintiff submits that the Sammatipatra dated ..
was obtained by fraud and mispresentation saying that it
is for the correction of tax amount whereas it was change
in the name of records of defendant no 1 for the
ownership purpose sale or transfer was no way the
intention and same is concluded because there is no
consideration, it contains nothing about possession of
the property mere transfer without possession is useless
which

cannot be effected, there is no area specified

which is subject matter of the sammatipatra plaintiff

further submits that if the entire property was recorded
wrongly in the name of the Plaintiff the n why only name
is corrected for the 301 sqft and not for entire area.
17. Plaintiff submits that on . Defendant no 4
submitted application to the Defendant no 1 to 3 wherein
he had not annexed the required documents. All the
documents in the Application shown to be ticked as if
they are present with the application but some are

absent despite of that the change of name was done by

the defendant no 1 to 3, the purpose of change in name
was shown to be purchase of property by the defendant
no 4 but sammatipatra was about the wrongly recording
of the name of plaintiff. Possession of the property was
not been confirmed by the defendant no 1 to 4 as the
survey which is essential before transfer effecting and
new assessment of tax was not conducted. It is stated
there was no partition of the area nor was the same
intended to transfer because same is joint with entire
property.

18. Plaintiff submits that defendant no 4 has filed bogus

and forged incomplete false affidavit dated .. Before
defendant no 1 to 3 saying that he has purchased suit
property and thus want his name to be recorded in the
records of defendant no 1.

19 Plaintiff submits that defendant no 4 has filed bogus

and incomplete false statement dated .. Before
defendant no 1 to 3 saying that he has purchased suit
property and thus want his name to be recorded in the
records of defendant no 1. If the name of plaintiff is
wrongly mentioned in the property then how the same
was done and when the same of done and whether the
name of the defendant no 4 was previously existing and
how did he acquired rights are the important aspects
which are not being mentioned instatement and are
concealed with malafied intention.
20 . Plaintiff submits that defendant no 4 has filed bogus
and incomplete false statement dated .. on behalf of
Plaintiff by forging his signature Before defendant no 1
to 3 saying that Plaintiff has no objection for the change
of name in favor of defendant no 4 in the records of
defendant no 1 in respect of suit property.

21. Plaintiff submits that no notice for the change of

name was given by the Defendant no 1to 3 and without
his consent and notice intimation change of name for the
suit property was effected without his knowledge and
giving him the opportunity of being heard and same is
against the principle of natural justice.

22. Plaintiff submits that said property is in the

possession of the Plaintiff and he is enjoying the rent
from the tenant and paying the light bill Property tax and
water bill

to defendant no 1 further Plaintiff submits

that his daughter is conducting business of STD Booth

in the suit property since 1994 and since months
the defendant no 4 is taking efforts to unlawfully
dispossess Plaintiff from suit property with help of local
goons and politicians and causing harassment to the
Plaintiff and his family . Plaintiff also approached the
police but police denied any action saying it is civil
dispute go can file suit in civil court and is working
under influence of the Defendant no 4 and his high
political contact.

23. Plaintiff submits that he has the prima facie case and
has strong chances of getting success in the same as this
is the clear cut case of the fraudulent transfer involving
the statutory authority as well and the same needs to be
prove in order to curb the evil practice.

24. Plaintiff submits that he is having the possession of

the entire property and also the suit property his
daughter is conducting the business of the STD booth he
has also got the premises rented to the hospital and thus
entered in the lawful transaction and the life of the
Plaintiff is dependent upon the suit property and this is

the only source of survival hence the balance of

convenience is in favor of the Plaintiff Balance of
convenience.
25. Plaintiff submits that Plaintiff is in the exclusive
possession of the Suit property and if the Possession of
the Plaintiff is not protected he may incur and will be
forcefully disposed of the property by unlawful means
deploying the goondas Plaintiff further submits that the
loss caused to the Plaintiff could not be compensated in
the terms of money and there is no other efficacious
remedy available other than the grant of injunction to
avoid irreparable loss.
26. Plaintiff said that cause of action for filing this suit
arise on . date when defendant no 4 took
objection against issue of drug license saying that the
suit property is owned by him and he then Plaintiff filed
application dated .. Under right to information act
and thereafter got documents on . further now
plaintiff is receiving threat from defendant to give
possession or else he live be beaten up and all the suit
property will be set on fire thus the cause of action for
the suit is in continuation till date and the this suit is
well within the limitation period.

27. Plaintiff submits that suit property is located within

the territorial jurisdiction of this honble court and the
valuation of the said suit is according to and lies within
the pecuniary jurisdiction of this hon ble court hence
this court has the right to try and decide this suit.

It Is Humbly Prayed
1. That sammattipatra dated . be declared
forged and thereby void.

2. That

defendant

Permananent

no

injunction

may
shall

by

the

way

of

permanently

be

restrained from entering suit property, restricted by

the

way

of

injunction

from

obstructing

the

possession of the plaintiff or dispossessing Plaintiff

from the suit property creating third party interest
and by himself or through his agents and persons
claiming through defendant no 4 and conducting
their routine business activity
3. That defendant no 4 may by the way of Temporary
injunction shall be restrained from entering suit
property, restricted by the way of injunction from
obstructing the possession of the plaintiff or
dispossessing Plaintiff

from the suit property

creating third party interest and by himself or

through his agents and persons claiming through
defendant no 4 and conducting their routine
business activity pending trial as interim relief
4. That defendant no 4 may kindly be directed to file
the original copy of the sammatipatra dated
in court and thereby also restrained him from
further using it to avoid further controversy.
5. That defendant no 1 to 3 be directed to remove the
name of the defendant no 4 form their record as
owner of the suit property.
6. That defendant no 4 may be directed to pay to
Plaintiff damages for the financial physical and
mental loss cause to Plaintiff.
7. That Plaintiff may kindly be allowed to amend the
suit if required
8. Any other order in the interest of justice equity and
good conscience may kindly be passed

Date

Place

Plaintiff
Verification

I Mr. Muhammad kutubuddin Shaikh, Age :- Adult ,

Occupation :- Business, R/at :- A-7 Sai Residency near
Nirankari Satsang Bhavan Vijaynagar Kalewadi Pune 17,
do hereby state on solemn Affirmation that whatever
stated in para no 1 to 27 is true and correct as per my
knowledge information and belief .

Advocate for Plaintiff

Affidavit of plaint
Exb no 5
Affidavit
No caveat application
Decree
No caveat affidavit
list of document