IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE UDIPI O.S.NO.

63/2011

Between Sundari Poojarthy And Madhava Kallyanpur and another . Defendants . Plaintiff

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1 UNDER ORDER VIII RULES 1 & 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908.

The Defendant abovenamed begs to state as follows: 1. That the suit is false and frivolous to the extent denied and the same is not maintainable in law and on merits. 2. That the averments made in plaint para nos.III (3 to 9) are false and hence denied. It is submitted that the plaint property (it is termed as plaint A schedule property though it is not described properly in the plaint) was a chalageni holding of late Sri Appu Poojari, the father of the plaintiff as well as the defendants, who passed away somewhere at the end of 1971 leaving behind his widow Smt.Seethu Poojarthy 4 sons and a daughter viz. Kariyppa, Sundari, Madhava, Shekara and Chandra as his only legal heirs. At the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, his widow Smt.Seethu Poojarthy has filed an application before the Udipi Land Tribunal for conferment of occupancy right for and on behalf of the family. It was not on an exclusive tenancy right of the said Seethu Poojarthy. 3. That it is further submitted that the plaintiff has started working somewhere in 1967-68 as Anganvadi cook drawing a salary of Rs.100/- p.m. Except the same she had no other source of income. As a matter of fact she was not able to maintain herself in that meager amount of salary. Since there has been a burning property in the family, this defendant shifted himself to Mumbai and started working at various places. When this defendant come down to the village in 1988 the thatched house situated in the plaint property was almost in collapsing state and the plaintiff and Seethu Poojarthy were virtually weeping as they were unable to repair the same and requested this defendant to get it rebuilt immediately, or else they would go absolutely unsheltered. Having understood the pathetic situation in which his aged parents and family members were living this defendant made up his mind to get the house re-constructed at the initial budget of Rs.60,000/-. As it exceeded to Rs.1,29,000/- this defendant constrained to invest the said amount inevitably by borrowing loans. It is only this defendant who has invested entire cost of construction of the said house construction and no other member

of the family had capacity to pay anything. The plaint property was also not deriving any income.

4. The elder brother one Kariyppa was working in Mumbai and he was living with his wife Smt.Bhageerathi and 2 minor daughters in a flat obtained on pagdi system at Santa Cruz (West). His younger brother Shekhar had shifted to Mumbai somewhere in the year 1967 and he never turned down to his native place thereafter. He was of a criminal nature and living like local goonda only. He was alcoholic and womanizer, always roaming with different girl friends and his life style was of just like a beast. The aforesaid brother Kariyppa died after 2 months after the death of his father. Bhageerathi came down to her parental house at Nidamballi of Udipi Taluka long with her minor children after the death of her husband Kariyppa and she also died with 3 months leaving the said minor children who were then aged about 4 and 3 years became orphans. After the occurrence of 3 deaths as aforesaid there has been absolutely difficult for their daily bread in the native house. This defendant used to send money also every month to his parental house till his mothers death for family maintenance. Taking advantage of the death of Kariyppa and his widow Bhagirathi soon the said Shekar had occupied their said flat at Mumbai forcibly and thereafter he surrendered vacant possession of the same to its owner upon receiving an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by way of compensation. The said amount was used for his own purposes. He died 2 years ago at Mumbai. 5. It is further submitted that this defendant took the 2 nd Defendant to Mumbai providing him shelter as well as food during 1984-1993. He also took plain6tiffs younger son Sunil to Mumbai and provided him education, food and shelter during 1985-2003. It is not correct to say that this defendant has already left for Mumbai decades ago and is permanently residing there with his family as contended in plaint para no.III (12). It is for employment sake this defendant is ordinarily residing at Mumbai. 6. The allegations made in plaint para no.III (3) is also not correct. It is submitted that as a responsible son this defendant was duty bound to look after his aged and infirm parents. He did it sincerely. Likewise out of affection upon his family members he strived hard in bringing up the members of the family including the plaintiff. Since the plaint property had been enjoyed all these days by the plaintiff as well as the 2 nd defendant only, no question of this defendant denying share in the property to the plaintiff and showing his unwillingness for portion would arise. 7. That no cause of action for the suit has arisen yet. Anyway this defendant has no objection for the plaintiff from taking her legitimate share in the plaint property in accordance with law, provided this defendant does get the present market value for the house standing thereon as the entire money has been invested by him alone for the construction plus his legitimate share in the landed property. Further the minor children of his brother Kariyappa are also entitled to have their legitimate share in the property. 8. That the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. The suit is silent regarding the improvement affected by late Appu Poojary. The suit schedule property is comprised of a 16 yielding coconut trees, 2 Jack trees, 2 mongo trees, well which would cost about Rs.30,000/-

9. That the description of the plaint is not correct. 10. That the LRs of Kariayapa are the necessary parties to this suit. In their absence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 11. The frame of the suit as brought is not correct. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. 12. Therefore the suit may be disposed of in accordance with law. Udipi

Advocate for 1st Defendant (K.Dayananda)

1st Defendant

I, the defendant No.1 above named do hereby declare that the facts stated above are all tr4ue to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Udipi

1st Defendant1