Proceures
monjula sooresh
(Querist) 02 October 2012
This query is : Resolved
Few relevant facts - With the right of survivorship on the death of one of the 2 joint owners the partition of the undivided family house property (UFHP) had been extinguished. After the death of the joint owner, after the expiry of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, taking advantage of the other (my) joint owner’s absence from India ( NRI status) a greedy land grabber(glg) came into the Court claiming in her petition that she had “purchased” the half share of the deceased owner before his death. Gig therefore claimed entitlement for impletion in said partition suit which was extinguished and no longer pending.
The entire commercially valuable UFHP has been in my exclusive, open, legal, peaceful, uninterrupted, settled possession, enjoyment and control for over 35 years todate and I have been paying all the government house taxes, carrying out all repair and maintenance work, maintaining an medical care of aged parents residing in the UFHP….
Glg failed to submit any sale deed conveying the claimed half share of the deceased joint owner thereby conclusively proving the deception practiced by her.
In support of her petition claiming entitlement to impletion in place of the deceased joint owner and for half portion of my UFHP to be carved out as a separate takhta by a Pleader Commissioner and delivered to her, gig submitted a Xerox copy of a document fraudulently misrepresented as a registered sale deed (sd). Prima facie the purported sale deed is fabricated, forged, false and fraudulent because it dishonestly claims that the Preliminary decree (PD) passed in said extinguished Partition suit had decreed final partition by metes an bounds and the purported SD seeks to transfer by ‘absolute sale’ the exclusive parcel of UFHP partitioned by metes an bounds.
One glance at the said Preliminary decree (PD) conclusively proves that the sale transaction relied upon by gig is dishonestly fraudulent, false concocted because the said pd reads that under ‘the state of affairs of unity of title and unity of possession’ the two joint owners each have equal half share.
The purported sale deed evidences a dishonestly fraudulent non-existent transaction fraud and consequently the same has not transferred ownership of any object whatsoever in fact an in law to the alleged Purchaser –glg. No transfer of any semblance of ownership or title has taken place “by virtue” of the purported sale deed because the object /subject matter of the sale deed does not exist legally or factually and is a nullity and the deceased alleged joint owner /vendor had no title to any exclusive parcel and has denied any such alleged transaction in judicial proceedings upto the day of his demise. In fact said deceased alleged vendor & his lawyer had no knowledge of transaction /sd alleged by glg. Both until his death have judicially admitted that the UFHP has not been divided or partitioned by metes and bounds at any time an there has never been at any point of time any remote semblance of physical separation of any portion of the property as per any shares.
The title deed executed by Mother (absolute owner in possession) in creating joint tenancy /ownership – doc. Relied upon in said Partition suit was suppressed.
Learned Sub Judge himself has found the said xerox sd inadmissible in evidence and refused to admit said Xerox copy of document in evidence or acknowledge that the same has been proved by judicial evidence. Said SD has NOT been marked with an exhibit number. The fact that no exhibit number, no admission, no endorsement as mandatory under Order 13 rule 4 CPC has been given to said Xerox document proves in legal terms that the said Xerox document has not become part of evidence in court records.
The Preliminary objection was raised by my lawyer reminding the Court that Glg’s case was barred by limitation and abatement.
The Order sheet reveals that the Court directed glg to file rejoinder to said preliminary objection and was proceeding on the issue of limitation and abatement on the next day scheduled for hearing. Instead on the next day scheduled for hearing the Learned Judge sprang a surprise by passing an order impleading gig in place of deceased joint owner and for carving out separate takhta by Pleader Commissioner and delivery of the same to glg.
No semblance of any adjudication was allowed. No rejoinder reg limitation & abatement was filed by glg confirming collusion. In fact to mislead me and prevent me from contesting on merit LJ decided to proceed on limitation & abatement 3 years after the preliminary objection was raised. Meanwhile behind my back, without notice to me Pleader Commissioner was appointed changed an in great haste without any visit to UFHP without any documents ( title documents, khasra khatiayian etc.) a prima facie dishonestly fraudulent report allotting the exclusive parcel falsely claimed in purported SD to glg
Thus Glg failed to discharge the initial burden of proof to even prima facie establish her case in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under:-
"Sec. 101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
3 years after the Preliminary objection reg limitation & abatement was filed LJ passed 2n order rejecting my reminder that glg’s case was barred by limitation and abatement is automatic. Glg never prayed for condonation of delay or offered any reason and the abatement was never put aside. There has been complete silence on the issue of limitation.
The order sheet reveals that all my objections / petitions placing full particulars of the series of frauds practiced by glg, the fact that glg has no locus standi have been ignored. In fact 2nd order rejecting my petition on limitation an abatement actually militates against my numerous petitions giving full particulars of the fraud , objecting to Xerox copy an total unexplained absence of originals and states that I admitted glg’s claims ! The rejection of abatement was on the basis of a Patna HC ecision in 1956 which was overruled by the Fb of the samr Patna HC in 1962!!!
The statement made in my affidavits with respect to the series of frauds, forgery, no evidence, gig’s judicial admissions of systemic frauds practised … till today stands unrebutted.
I filed review petition under S44 evidence Act on fraud and collusion (Misc application arising out of Partition suit) an my substantive right to avoid orders obtained by fraud and collusion which has not yet been admitted in spite of my petitions setting out the grounds and compelling circumstances enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 cpc and binding decisions of the Supreme Court.
Now after 8 years of suffering irretrievable losses by being forced to fight malicious persecution and abuse of process of court the new LJ has called upon glg to file rejoinders to my said affidavits. Evasive general denials to the effect that they are too decent to reply to my statements on judicially admitted systematic frauds practiced by gig over 8years. These under Supreme Court laws constitute admission once again.
If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it = Supreme Court of India,M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007, CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3827 of 2007 arising out of Special leave petition (civil) no.9409 of 2005,PETITIONER: M/S PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD v. RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF INDIA, BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR
Now if LJ in trial Court insists on rejecting my review petition and continuing with gigs fraudulent or malicious manipulation of the partition suit, - the wrongful act is the actual filing of the suit itself for improper and malicious reason – should I approach the High Court ? How ? filing IA? Should I proceed with my application to HC before the review petition is rejected? I intend to place before the LJ once again the Supreme Court laws which call for immediate non suiting of party practicing fraud
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 August 2013
Has the order passed? YOu are silent on this issue. if the order is passed against u then you can always go to high court for revision of the order.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 August 2013
Excuse me! i failed to comprehend your query,it looks more like an argument of overconfidence than a simple query of facts.
Not tasty,i could not relish.
If you weed out unnecessary adjectives of boasting and put simply facts as they are,
i would be able to comprehend and guide you to the best of my ability .Thanks.
