Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: documents notarized in Chandan Kumar vs Surender Pal on 4 December, 2023Matching Fragments
CS No. 476402/2015 Chandan Kumar Vs. Surender Pal & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19 Defendant number 1 had also filed the written submission in which once again he had reiterated the contents of written statement alongwith the testimonies of the witnesses appeared on his behalf. It is stated that plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Sh. Rajender Singh S/o Sh. Asha Ram, on 25.02.2010, vide notarized documents that is General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Deed of Will, receipt of sum of rupees 1,50,000/- and possession letter, all dated 25.02.2010. It is stated that plaintiff had then sold the suit property, on 25.04.2012, to Sh. Parmod Kumar S/o Sh. Meheswar Prasad vide notarized documents that is General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Will, receipt of sum of rupees 1,60,000/-, possession letter and affidavit, all dated 25.04.2012 in favour of Sh. Pramod Kumar that is defendant number 3. Defendant number 3 then again sold the suit property to one Sh. Sharad S/o Sh. Om Prakash vide notarized documents that is General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Deed of Will, receipt of sum of rupees 3,00,000/-, possession letter and affidavit, all dated 29.06.2012. It is stated that thereafter Sharad sold the suit property to Meena Devi vide notarized documents that is General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Deed of Will, receipt of sum of rupees 3,00,000/-, possession letter and affidavit, all dated 07.12.2012 that is defendant number 2, who sold the suit property to defendant number 1 Surender Pal vide notarized documents that is General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Deed of Will, receipt of a sum of rupees 4,00,000/-, possession letter and affidavit, all dated 07.12.2012. It is further stated that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected under Order I Rule 13 CPC because of non-joinder/mis-joinder of the parties as plaintiff had intentionally and deliberately did not make Sharad a party in the present case. Plaintiff has filed the false suit against the defendant number 1 as the defendant number 1 Surender Pal is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property.