IN THE COURT OF THE ADD CIVIL JUDGE BADAMI

AT: BADAMI

ORIGINAL SUIT No:

1) Prabhanna S/o Ningappa Shirur,

Age: 23 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami. Plaintiff
V/s
1) Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami Defendants

WRITTEN STAEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 AND 2 OF C.P.C.

Herein, the above named Defendant No1 submits the

written statement as under: -
1. That the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, baseless and
not tenable under law or on facts.
2. The suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is not
maintainable under law and it is liable to dismissed.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs is filed with an oblique motive to
harass the defendants mentally and financially.
4. The averments made in all paras of the plaint are denied
except that those are specifically admitted by him.
5. It is false to say the Plaintiff is owner of the in respect of
Property beaing C.T.S. No 981 Are 105.25 Sq Meter and it is
faurther false to say that T. M. C. No 2097/981 situated at
Badami Town bounded by To East- TMCRoad, To West- CTS
No 984, To North- C.T.S No 983 , To South- C.T.S. No 974 which
is coming under Town Panchyat Badami Tq: Badami. The
said site hereinafter called as suit property.
6. It is false to say that the suit property is originally belongs to
the 1 Annpurnap W/o Ganiesh Shirur, 2. Bharati Ganesha
Shirur 3. Akkmahadeevi W/o Somashekhar Shivashimp 4.
Vidhavati W/o Vishwnath Shindagi 5. Rekha W/o Basavaraj
Kubasad 6. MahinlingappaS/o Ganesha Shirshi. It is futher
false to say that they are all are residing at different places It
is not rue to say that and they are sold to the plaintiff taking
consideration amount of Rs2,11,000/- executed the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff on dated 19-4-2018 Property
beaing C.T.S. No 981 Are 105.25 Sq Meter T. M. C. No
2097/981 situated at Badami The boundries shown in the
plaint is rong and not admitted this defendant It is false tos
ay that the Town bounded by To East- TMC Road, To West-
CTSNo 984, To North- C.T.S No 983 , To South- C.T.S. No 974
which is coming under Town Panchyat Badami after the sale
deed the plaintiff has entered his name in the C.T.S extract
and T.MC records. It is further false to say that the present
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. It is not true
to to say that the plaintiff is the not lawful owner and not
enjoyment of the suit open site, It is false to say that plaintiff is
the as absolute owner till today.
7. It is false to say that plaintiff is not owner in possession of the
suit property and the said property is in not lawful possession
of the plaintiff till to this day. It is false to say that the plaintiff
has given the application to construct the residential
building suit property to the Defendant No 4 on dated 22-5-
2018. It is false to say that after given application dully
enquire the Defendant No 4 have given the valid permission
to the plaintiff construct building in the suit property on 16-8-
2018. It is false to say that after receive the valid permission It
is further false to say that the plaintiff has started the building
in the suit property, It is false to say that the said building is
partially constructed in his area It is false to say that te
 plaintiff stocked the cement and sand, steel, etc and huge
loan taken from the various persons.
8. It is false to say that defendants have absolutely no right
title or interest whatsoever in the suit property. It is further
false to say that defendant are unnecessarily and illegally
obstructing construction and peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. It is false to say that the
defendant No 1to 3 are in collusion with bad elements in the
city are trying to causing nuisance to the suit property of the
plaintiff. It is false to say that defendant give the pressure to
the defendant No 4 to stop the construction building
permission of the plaintiff, It is further false to say that due to
the instigation of the defendant No 1to 3 and defendant No
4 has given the false notice to the plaintiff on 16-8-2018. It is
false to say that the above notice is not legal one existing
the T.M.C. acts. It is false to say that the defendant No4 has
given the valid construct permission to the plaintiff on 11-6-
2018. It is false to say that recently false notice issued to
the plaintiff. It is false to say that the Defendants are not
owner are title holder of the suit property. It is false to say
that plaintiff requested the defendants not to indulge It is
further false to say that defendants high handed and illegal
acts of the defendants It Is false to say that defendant are
continued to the plaintiff will be deprived of suit property It is
false to say that plaintiff will be put to heavy and irreparable
loss.
9. There is no cause of action for this suit arose suit the plaintiff
have not paid the proper court fees on this The plaintiff
have not property valued for the purpose of the permanent
injunction against the defendant and valuation is made The
plaintiff have paid the court fees as per the market values
True facts
10. The plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts
filed this suit for hashing the poor defendants. The plaintiff is
powerful person in the society. The plaintiff have not anxed
the hand sketch and not produced the map hence these
count this suit is not tenable in the eye of the law. The plaintiff
has not given the any notice to prior to filing this suit against
the present defendants. The plaintiff have misled the
defendant No4 obtaining the false permission to the
panchyat . This defendant give the various application to
the defendant No 4 to give the permission copy of the
plaintiff but the defendant No4 colluded with each other not
given to the any reply to the present defendants
11.

Verification

Herein Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath Age: 40 years,

Occ: Business, R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami do hereby
state on solemn affirmation that, what are stated in the
foregoing paras of the written statement are true and correct
to the best of our knowledge belief and information and the
said contents are read over to me in Kannada Language

Place: Badami. Defenant No1

Dated:

.
 IN THE COURT OF THE ADD CIVIL JUDGE BADAMI

AT: BADAMI

ORIGINAL SUIT No:

1) Prabhanna S/o Ningappa Shirur,

Age: 23 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami. - - - Plaintiff
V/s
1) Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami.. Defendants
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
Herein Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath Age: 40
years, Occ: Business, R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami do
hereby state on solemn affirmation as under

That I am the Defendant No1 in this case and I know the

facts of the case.

That the averments made in my written statement para

are read over to me that they are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge belief and information.

That the above contents are read over to me and that

they are true and correct.

Place: Badami. Deponent

Dated:

I know the Deponent.

Advocate, Badami
 IN THE COURT OF THE PRI CIVIL JUDGE BADAMI

AT: BADAMI

ORIGINAL SUIT No:

1) Prabhanna S/o Ningappa Shirur,

Age: 23 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami. Plaintiff
V/s
1) Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami Defendants

WRITTEN STAEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 AND 2 OF C.P.C.

Herein, the above named Defendant No4 submits the

written statement as under: -
1. That the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, baseless
and not tenable under law or on facts.
2. The suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is not
maintainable under law and it is liable to dismissed.
3. The suit of the plaintiffs is filed with an oblique motive to
harass the defendants mentally and financially.
4. The averments made in all paras of the plaint are denied
except that those are specifically admitted by him.
5. It is false to say the Plaintiff is owner of the in respect of
Property beaing C.T.S. No 981 Are 105.25 Sq Meter and it is
faurther false to say that T. M. C. No 2097/981 situated at
Badami Town bounded by To East- TMCRoad, To West-
CTS No 984, To North- C.T.S No 983 , To South- C.T.S. No 974
which is coming under Town Panchyat Badami Tq:
Badami. The said site hereinafter called as suit property.
6. It is false to say that the suit property is originally belongs
to the 1 Annpurnap W/o Ganiesh Shirur, 2. Bharati
 Ganesha Shirur 3. Akkmahadeevi W/o Somashekhar
Shivashimp 4. Vidhavati W/o Vishwnath Shindagi 5. Rekha
W/o Basavaraj Kubasad 6. MahinlingappaS/o Ganesha
Shirshi. It is futher false to say that they are all are residing
at different places It is not rue to say that and they are
sold to the plaintiff taking consideration amount of
Rs2,11,000/- executed the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff on dated 19-4-2018 Property beaing C.T.S. No 981
Are 105.25 Sq Meter T. M. C. No 2097/981 situated at
Badami The boundries shown in the plaint is rong and not
admitted this defendant It is false tos ay that the Town
bounded by To East- TMC Road, To West- CTSNo 984, To
North- C.T.S No 983 , To South- C.T.S. No 974 which is
coming under Town Panchyat Badami after the sale deed
the plaintiff has entered his name in the C.T.S extract and
T.MC records. It is further false to say that the present
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. It is not
true to to say that the plaintiff is the not lawful owner
and not enjoyment of the suit open site, It is false to say
that plaintiff is the as absolute owner till today.
7. It is false to say that plaintiff is not owner in possession of
the suit property and the said property is in not lawful
possession of the plaintiff till to this day. It is false to say
that the plaintiff has given the application to construct the
residential building suit property to the Defendant No 4 on
dated 22-5-2018. It is false to say that after given
application dully enquire the Defendant No 4 have given
the valid permission to the plaintiff construct building in
the suit property on 16-8-2018. It is false to say that after
receive the valid permission It is further false to say that
the plaintiff has started the building in the suit property, It is
false to say that the said building is partially constructed in
his area It is false to say that te plaintiff stocked the
 cement and sand, steel, etc and huge loan taken from
the various persons.
8. It is false to say that defendants have absolutely no right
title or interest whatsoever in the suit property. It is further
false to say that defendant are unnecessarily and
illegally obstructing construction and peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. It is false to say that
the defendant No 1to 3 are in collusion with bad elements
in the city are trying to causing nuisance to the suit
property of the plaintiff. It is false to say that defendant
give the pressure to the defendant No 4 to stop the
construction building permission of the plaintiff, It is further
false to say that due to the instigation of the defendant
No 1to 3 and defendant No 4 has given the false notice to
the plaintiff on 16-8-2018. It is false to say that the above
notice is not legal one existing the T.M.C. acts. It is false to
say that the defendant No4 has given the valid construct
permission to the plaintiff on 11-6-2018. It is false to say
that recently false notice issued to the plaintiff. It is false
to say that the Defendants are not owner are title holder
of the suit property. It is false to say that plaintiff
requested the defendants not to indulge It is further false
to say that defendants high handed and illegal acts of
the defendants It Is false to say that defendant are
continued to the plaintiff will be deprived of suit property
It is false to say that plaintiff will be put to heavy and
irreparable loss.
9. There is no cause of action for this suit arose suit the
plaintiff have not paid the proper court fees on this The
plaintiff have not property valued for the purpose of the
permanent injunction against the defendant and
valuation is made The plaintiff have paid the court fees
as per the market values
 True facts
10. The plaintiff has suppressed the true and material
facts filed this suit for hashing the defendant No4 The
plaintiff is powerful person in the society. The plaintiff have
not anxed the hand sketch and not produced the map
hence these count this suit is not tenable in the eye of the
law. The plaintiff has not given the any notice to prior to
filing this suit against the present defendants. The plaintiff
have misled the defendant No4 obtaining the false
permission to the panchyat . This defendant give the
notice to the plaintiff without given any set back illegally
construct the building and the defendant issue notice to
the plaintiff to stop the construct building . The T.MC. is
the government official body before filing the suit notice is
mandatory provision . The plaintiff have not complied the
mandatory provision under the karntaka Municipalities
act 1993

Verification

Herein do hereby state on solemn affirmation that, what are

stated in the foregoing paras of the written statement are true
and correct to the best of our knowledge belief and
information and the said contents are read over to me in
Kannada Language

Place: Badami. Defenant No4

Dated:

.
 IN THE COURT OF THE PRI CIVIL JUDGE BADAMI

AT: BADAMI

ORIGINAL SUIT No:

1) Prabhanna S/o Ningappa Shirur,

Age: 23 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami. - - - Plaintiff
V/s
1) Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath
Age: 40 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami.. Defendants
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
Herein Shivayya S/o Panchayya Chavakimath Age: 40
years, Occ: Business, R/o Kallipetti Oni Badami Tq: Badami do
hereby state on solemn affirmation as under

That I am the Defendant No1 in this case and I know the

facts of the case.

That the averments made in my written statement para

are read over to me that they are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge belief and information.

That the above contents are read over to me and that

they are true and correct.

Place: Badami. Deponent

Dated:

I know the Deponent.

Advocate, Badami