IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, THANE

AT THANE

SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NO. 793/2009

SHRI. SURENDRA RAGHUNATH

VADHAVKAR … Plaintiff.

SHRI SUHAS RAGHUNATH

VADHAVKAR & OTHERS … Defendants.

AMENDED

WRITTEN STATEMENT /SAY ON BEHALF OF THE

DEFENDANT NO. 3.
PARAWISE AS FOLLOWS:

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

The Defendant No. 3 states that the above-mentioned suit filed by

the Plaintiff, her real brother is misconceived, frivolous and filed with
mala-fide intention. The said suit is bad-in-law, and filed with wrongful
intention to create misunderstanding between the real brothers and sisters
and once acted upon the “SUIT WILL”, having received the amount
bequeathed in his favour, now disaffirming the benefits conferred on the
Defendant No. 1. Such course of action is impermissible in law and in fact
on this ground alone, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs ought to be dismissed
with exemplary cost as the same is bad in law and opposed to the
principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTS ABOVE MENTIONED,

THE DEFENDANT WOULD LIKE TO REPLY PARAWISE, AS
FOLLOWS:

1. With reference to paragraph 1 of the plaint, the same is a factual

position, and therefore the Defendant No. 3 does not want to comment.

2. The Defendant No. 3 states that, it is true that her deceased father
was serving in the Indian Railway and was holding a high level post of
Officer Cadre. The said job was transferable in various cities, and was
allotted spacious bungalow, flat on each of the postings till his retirement.
The deceased father out of his retirement benefits, like provident fund,
gratuity, etc., purchased the suit Flat No. C-14 on first floor of Natraj
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Panchpakhadi, Thane (W) in the year
1974 in the name of Shri. Raghunath, the deceased herein, and not because
he was head of the joint family. The deceased supported all the family
members except Defendant No. 3 as she got married and gone away in the
year 1972; altogether 10 members were residing in the suit Flat. The
Defendant No. 2 was married and had a son. The Plaintiff was also
married. Defendant No. 1 and the two sisters Sulabha and Sushama were
unmarried. All the children of the deceased started earning and used to
contribute certain amount for household expenses. The deceased had
purchased the suit Flat in Panchpakhadi, with the intention that, he be
near, the Defendant No. 3, his daughter, who was staying in Anjali
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Panchpakhadi and he also had special
attachment with Defendant No. 3. Later, in his life, the deceased used to
consult his Son-in-Law, i.e., husband of the Defendant No. 3 while taking
major decisions in the family. Defendant No. 3 was working in Bayer
Company before marriage for five years and also contributed in her own
marriage. Other two daughters were studying in S.N.D.T. Women’s
University on paying nominal fees and being daughter of Railway Officer,
were holding Railway Passes. Therefore, statement of the Plaintiff that he
had contributed for marriage expenses of Defendant No. 3 and education
expenses of others is totally wrong, even if it is accepted about the family
contributions by the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 towards family
expenses, it was their duty as they were given shelter by the deceased
along with their wives and children. Defendant No. 2 acquired a Flat on
the upper Floor of said Natraj Society in the year 1979 is correct, still the
Plaintiff was residing with the deceased father. Defendant No. 2 shifted to
the said Flat along with his family. Defendant No. 1 also purchased
adjoining Flat No. 13 in the year 1988 in Natraj Cooperative Housing
Society on suggestion of the deceased and his wife so that it would be
convenient for them to be taken care of by him. Defendant No. 1 was
taking care of his parents whereas the Plaintiff purchased separate Flat in
1989, because mother of the Defendant No. 3 showed her concern over
behaviour of the Plaintiff and his family towards the deceased as, the
deceased was of independent nature and never liked dominance and
interference of anybody else, even his own children, therefore suggested
that the Plaintiff should move elsewhere and purchased his own residence
with his own earnings. In fact, the Defendant No. 3 helped the Plaintiff
and gave Rs. 15,000.00 for purchasing a Flat, at Oswal Park, though the
same was repaid afterwards.

3. The Defendant No. 3 states that with reference to Para 3 of the

Plaint, the contents thereof are totally false and baseless. It is incorrect to
state that the Plaintiff spent 22 years of working life supporting his
parents and his family. The deceased father was a pensioner who had
retired from a high post and therefore had to depend on none for any
monitory support. In fact, he had left handsome bank balance and fixed
deposits, which he has bequeathed to his children. The Defendant No. 3
states that it is true that their mother died in the year 1994. But it is totally
false and baseless to state that the deceased father Raghunath was left
alone, but in fact, as per his suggestion, Defendant No. 1 purchased
adjoining Flat No. C-13 in Natraj Cooperative Housing Society, to take
care of him. It would be convenient for Defendant No. 1 and his family to
support the deceased father in his day to day life. In fact, the daughters of
Defendant No. 1 were there always to take care of their Grandfather, who
were sleeping in the suit Flat during night time, they also had their study
room in the suit Flat, since the Plaintiff left for Oswal Park in 1989. The
Defendant No. 3 states that it is true that the deceased Raghunath was a
man of big heart, but it is not at all true and correct to state that the
investments were made in 5 equal parts as stated in the Plaint.

4. The Defendant No. 3 submits that with reference to Para 4 of the

Plaint, the content are half truths and therefore the same are denied.
Defendant No. 2 had shifted to bigger Flat in the year 2000, but never
asked his father deceased Raghunath to reside with him, as the deceased
father always enjoyed his independence and did not want to depend on
anybody. The deceased had a fall in the house and hit head on skirting of
the floor and had bleeding on the head in 2003, but after one month, was
suffering from little giddiness and was treated by Dr. Kshirsagar. The
deceased Raghunath was as per suggestion of Dr. Kshirsagar was treated
in Wockhardt Hospital, Mulund. The doctor from Wockhardt Hospital,
Dr. M.M. Vaidya explained that there was a formation of liquid between
the skull and the brain of deceased Raghunath and same had to be
removed. This is not an operation on the brain, after the said operation, he
recovered very fast apart from ware and tear of old age there was no
complaints of health, the deceased started his routine immediately,
climbing the stairs, taking walk in the Society, talking with neighbours
and family members, etc., it is not true that there was degeneration of
memory. The deceased Raghunath never stayed out of his residence apart
from at Defendant No. 3’s residence. Defendant No. 3 was never
interested in her father Raghunath’s financial matters and never asked
about the same. The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 in fact never bothered
to enquire with Defendant No. 1 as to how he was meeting with expenses
of his father. This Defendant No. 3 states that there is therefore, no base to
such a statement and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof.

5. The Defendant No. 3 states that, the contents thereof are totally
false and baseless and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof in fact their
father had never cooked food in his lifetime and was always having his
food with the family of the Defendant No. 1. The deceased only used to
warm the milk in the morning. The deceased was very particular of
cleanliness and used to clean his house by himself. Even at the age of 94,
used to perform pooja of family deities. The deceased for keeping himself
fit, used to clean the house with the help of servant. The statement that the
house was unkept, no proper cleanliness was made and the kitchen was
neglected is denied having no base and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof
thereof. In fact, it was the Defendant No. 1 who was taking all the care of
his father and the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 never bothered to even
visit their father on regular basis.

6. The Defendant No. 3 states that with reference to Para 6 of the Plaint,
the contentions are half truths. It is wrong that due to illness, deceased’s
health was deteriorating but in May 2007, while admitting in the Hospital,
the deceased had asked husband of Defendant No. 3, whether he had
carried, deceased Raghunath’s cheque book and whether he had signed the
same which clearly shows that the deceased’s memory was miraculously
sharp enough towards his financial matters, which reflects his
independence even at the time of hospitalization. During the rituals of the
deceased Raghunath, Defendant No. 3 was away in U.K.

7. The Defendant No. 3 states that since she was away in U.K., she is
not aware of the situation at the said time, but Defendant No. 2 e-mailed
the Defendant No. 3 and narrated the incidence that Defendant No. 2 while
cleaning the house along with Defendant No. 1 found out an envelop
containing WILL of the deceased Raghunath, which contradicts the
contents stated in Para 7 of the Plaint and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof
of the same. The Defendant No. 3 relies on the said e-mail dated
20.06.2007 and is annexed to the list of documents.

8. The Defendant No. 3 states that, she was away in U.K. and though
she was beneficiary under the WILL, always gave her consent and gave
respect to her deceased father’s wish in whatever form and would happily
accept it.

9. The Defendant No. 3 states that it is totally false that the Defendant
No. 1 after reading of the WILL took possession and started using the
same but Defendant No. 3 reiterates that the property was on the same
floor and was being commonly used by the father and son, i.e., the
Defendant No. 1 as one Flat and therefore the statement of the Plaintiff the
Defendant No. 1 highhandedly took over the possession of the suit Flat,
has no base. It is further stated that the deceased was of such nature that in
his lifetime, he could not be pressurized by anybody else while taking his
decisions; he was very much firm about them and used to stick upon the
same. He was never at anybody’s mercy till he breathed last. Deceased
used to express his feelings to Defendant No. 3 being his eldest amongst
daughters, therefore contentions of the Plaintiff in Para 9 is totally wrong
and baseless. Defendant No. 3 was away in U.K. and consented to open
the envelop in her absence. Mr. Raghunath used to consult the Aunt since
she was looking after his investments, the will on which the said maternal
Aunt and her husband have signed as witnesses, the Defendant No. 3,
recognizes the signature of the deceased, father Raghunath.

(a) Regarding the facts narrated in Para is contradictory to the e-mail

sent by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 3 which reveals that he
has admitted the fact that he along with Defendant No. 1 found out
envelop in deceased’s cupboard. As per mails, the Plaintiff himself
arranged meeting with the family members and senior member on
30.6.2007 which is contradictory in contents in Para. A copy of the
same is annexed to the list of Documents.
(b) Defendant No. 3 states that she recognizes the handwriting of her
father and confirms his signature on the WILL. Regarding other
allegations, Plaintiff should be put to the strict proof of the same.

(c) Defendant No. 3 states that the deceased may have said so in Para
(c), but deceased on the basis of his experience till his death, must
have decided to execute a WILL as per his own wish. In the suit
WILL, the deceased has distributed his property amongst all the
heirs, as per his own wish.

(d) Defendant No. 3 states that the deceased had executed the suit
WILL, few days prior to last hospitalization, but regarding other
contentions, Plaintiff should be put to the strict proof of the same.

(e) Defendant No. 3 states that apart from the title of the WILL, what
is important is the will and wish of the deceased while executing
the document and the witnesses who are close and whom the
deceased had faith and trust had signed the said WILL with remark
that they were signing upon the WILL of the deceased (Ichcha-
patra) and seen him signing the WILL which speaks for itself. As
per the mail sent by Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 3 dated 4th
August 2007 on the day of reading of the WILL admits that the
contents of the WILL are the wish of his late father and has been
signed in the presence of the witnesses, who are real sisters of
Plaintiff’s mother and her husband.

(f) Defendant No. 3 is unaware of the contention of the Para (f).

(g) Defendant No. 3 states that Plaintiff should be put to the strict
proof of itself.

(h) Defendant No. 3 states that the deceased was the exclusive owner
and in use and occupation of the suit Flat from the date of purchase
and had all the legal right to execute the WILL and bequeath his
 self-earned properties to beneficiaries of his own choice. It is
totally wrong, whatever is stated in Para (h).

10. Defendant No. 3 states that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 never
conveyed anything about the same, as stated in Para 10.

11. Defendant No. 3 states that she is not aware of the said
contentions.

12. Defendant No. 3 submits that these are allegations made by the
Plaintiff, suitable to his convenience.

13. Defendant No. 3 submits that as per theory of proportion apportioned.

The Plaintiff has along with other beneficiaries, acted upon the suit WILL
by accepting amounts bequeathed.

14. Defendant No. 3 states that these are the legal submissions since
the WILL was executed by the father, there is no question of undivided
share in the Flat.

15. No comments.

16. With reference to Para 16 to 21, the same are procedural and this
Defendant No. 3 would not like to comment on the same.

17. In the circumstances, the prayers of the Plaintiff cannot be granted

and the suit of the Plaintiff deserves to be dismissed with heavy
compensatory cost.

DEFENDANT NO. 3

Place: Thane
Date: March 02, 2010.
 VERIFICATION

I, Mrs. SHOBHANA SURESH CHITNIS, do hereby state that wherever

stated hereinabove is true and correct to best of my knowledge,
information and belief and in witness whereof, I have solemnly verified
this on 2nd Day of March, 2010 at Thane.

Solemnly verified at Thane

On this 02.03.2010.

Defendant No. 3

Advocate for the Defendant No. 3.