claiming
some false title, trespassed into the suit property in the year 1977.
Hence, the said Palanisamy filed a suit for declaration and recovery ... possession and hence the plaintiff
was constrained to file the suit for declaration and delivery of
possession and mesne profits.
5. The averments made
reply notice with false averments. Hence, the plaintiff
was constrained to file the above suit for the relief of declaration,
delivery of possession, mandatory injunction ... stealthily with a view to grab the property of the
plaintiff is false. For the notice issued by the plaintiff, the defendant
had sent
hence the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for declaration
and consequential relief of permanent injunction.
8. The averments made in the written ... Nagar, Karnataka State. He never looked after
the suit properties. It is false to state that with a view to grab the suit
properties
false
averments. Even thereafter, they attempted to trespass into the suit
property and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above
suit for declaration ... plaintiff's father died in the year 1972. It is
false to state that there had been oral partition between the plaintiff
said notice,
the defendants sent a reply notice dated 04.03.1985 with false
averments. In the said reply notice, they have stated that the
second defendant ... been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said
allegations are false. The defendants are never in possession of the
suit properties
said notice had
sent a reply notice through his Lawyer with false averments and
thereafter, it seems that defendant's Company had taken possession ... declaration and for delivery of
possession.
5. The averments made in the written statement are in brief
as follows:
It is false to state that
temple is claiming title for the suit properties. The
suit without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable. The
allegation that the suit property belongs ... possession of the suit
property from the year 1975, are all false. The suit properties are
the ancestral properties of the first defendant
notice. Hence, the
plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit for declaration of
their title, for mandatory injunction to remove the constructions
made ... Arumugam Nainar
under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.1972, are all false. The
property comprised in T.S.No.62 in Chellanary street,
Tiruvannamalai, measuirng
reply, hence, the plaintiffs were constrained
to file the above suit for declaration of their title and for recovery of
http://www.judis ... dated 22.03.1930, the suit
property originally belonged to J. Munisamy. It is false to allege that the
said Munisamy had executed a settlement deed dated
said notice.
But the defendant alone sent a reply notice with false averments.
Thereafter, the defendant had sold the property leaving 9ΒΌ cents
which ... hence, the plaintiff was
constrained to file the above suit for declaration and permanent
injunction.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
4. The averments made
