IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SALIPUR

C. S. NO. 58 / 2012
Parbati Sahu……………..…………………………Plaintiff
-Versus-
Sukanta Sahu & others …………………..Defendants
Written statement of the plaintiff as
against the counter claim of the
defendant No.1 runs as follows :-
1. That, the counter claim as made is neither maintainable under law nor in
existing facts on record.
2. That, there is no cause of action to bring such counter claim.
3. That, the counter claim is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.
4. That, it is not correct to say that title of Punananda was recognized on the
strength of decree dated 03.03.1949 passed in O.S. No.211/48 and it is not
correct to say that after death of Punananda Nabakishore succeeded Ac0.12
dec of suit land.
In the above context it would be appropriate to mention that the
plaintiff was not a party to that suit as aforesaid and by then she was
unconnected to the suit land and therefore, the defendant No.1 has to
prove the stand taken by him. It would be not out of place to mention that
in major settlement name of Batakrushna Prusty was recorded as against
Ac0.12 dec. If the title of Punananda was recognized in the suit, why and
what for it was not recorded in his favour in the next settlement operation.
Moreover settlement ROR has not been challenged.
5. That, Nabakishore had no title and possession over the suit land and
transferred made by him in favour of Basanta, Karunakar and Rupakar under
RSD No.2797 dated 20.06.1987 is not a valid document. No delivery of
possession was given to them. The subsequent transfer as has been
contended is not known to the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant No.1 is
required to all strict proof thereof, but it humbly submitted that Basanta,
Karunakar and Rupakar had no title and possession on the strength of their
alleged purchase under RSD No.2797 dated 20.06.1987. The alleged transfer
made by Basanta, Karunakar and Rupakar under RSD No.3036 dated
09.11.1995 in favour of Sai Dutta Puhana is not a valid document and no
delivery of possession was given to him. It is not correct to say Sai Dutta
Puhana was the owner in possession of any part of the suit land. The
transfer made by Sai Dutta in favour of the defendant No.1 under RSD
No.396 dated 28.02.2011 is not a valid document since Sai Dutta had no title
and possession to transfer it in favour of the defendant No.1. The defendant
 ~2~

No.1 was not put to possession over any part of the suit land on the
strength of his alleged purchase under RSD No.396 dated 28.02.2011. It is
not correct to say that, at the time of purchase, the asbestos house situated
over the suit land was used by his vendor for residential purpose. It is not
correct to say that the defendant No.1 invested huge amount of money for
construction of asbestos house comprising of 8 rooms with latrine and tube
well and is residing there with his family. It is not correct to say that the
defendant No.1 has constructed a compound wall all around the suit land.
The recording of the suit land of Ac0.07 dec in favour of the defendant No.1
on the strength of the mutation is not correct and it never creates title in
favour of the defendant No.1. The mutation ROR is not correct and confers
no title to the defendant No.1. It not correct to say that electric bills were
paid by the defendant No.1 and if there is any such document it was fake
and created. It is not correct to say that recording of the suit land to the
extent of Ac0.05 dec in favour of Parbati (Plaintiff) is illegal. It is not correct
to say that, Batakrushna or his successor were not in possession of the suit
land described in counter claim. It is not correct to say that after sale of
Punananda, Batakrushna or his successor had no occasion to possess the
suit land as per the decree passed in TS No.151/77 and 194/87. It is not
correct to say that the said judgment and decree has not given effect to and
was confined to pen and paper and that has not affected or taken away the
right of Punananda/his successors and vendees from his successors. It is not
correct to say that the defendant No.1 has absolute right, title and interest
over the suit land on the strength of the RSD dated 28.02.2011.
6. That, the averments made in Para-18(C) are not correct. It is not correct to
say that by the institution of the suit, the title of the defendant No.1 is being
clouded and he has apprehended dispossession from the suit land and
therefore he advanced counter claim. In this context, it would be
appropriate to mention that the defendant No.1 had no title and possession
over the suit land and therefore the question of cloud to his alleged title is
unwarranted and uncalled for. Similarly there is no question of
dispossession because the defendant No.1 was/is not in possession of any
part of the suit land.
7. That, the cause of action has been contended to bring such counter claim
under Para-18(D) of written statement is imaginary and created.
8. That, the counter claim is not properly valued.
9. That, the defendant No.1 is not entitled to the relief sought for by way of
counter claim.
10. That, the counter claim has been made is devoid of merit, otherwise too
which shall be submitted at the time of hearing.
 ~3~

Under the above facts and circumstances, the counter claim made by the
defendant No.1 being devoid of merit be dismissed and suit may kindly be
decreed with exemplary cost.

Salipur By the Plaintiff (through)

Date:
Advocate

VERIFICATION
I, Prabati Kumari Sahu, aged about 79 years, D/o: Late Gandharba Sahu,
At: Santapur, PO: Nemalo, PS: Salipur, Dist.: Cuttack, do hereby declare and
verify that the facts stated in the written statement are true to the best of my
knowledge and I sign this verification today i.e. on day of , 2019
being present in the court premises.

Verificant
AFFIDAVIT
I, Prabati Kumari Sahu, aged about 79 years, D/o: Late Gandharba Sahu,
At: Santapur, PO: Nemalo, PS: Salipur, Dist.: Cuttack, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state as follows :-
1. That, I am the plaintiff in this suit.
2. That, the facts stated in the written statement are true to the best
of my knowledge and belief.

Identified by me

Advocate Deponent
Salipur
Date:

CERTIFICATE
Due to non-availability of cartridge papers this WS has been typed in
thick blue papers.

Advocate