BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF 4TH ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE SRINAGAR

In the case of: Irjan Shafi

Plaintiff
VERSUS
Syed Mohsin Bukhari & Ors.
Defendants
In the matter of:
INDEX

S. No. Documents Page No.

1. Written Statement on behalf of Defendant no. 1 + E-
Court Fee
2. Advocate: M/S Jehangir Rehbar & Associates
Adv. Javaid Shah, Ahsan Kozgar
Lic. No. JK-583/17
Cell No. 9797677621
Email id shahjavid950@gmail.com

Defendant No. 1
THROUGH COUNSEL
M/s Jehangir Rehbar & Associates
Adv. Javaid Shah, Adv. Ahsan Kozgar
Advocates J&K High Court & Ladakh
Dated: 29.01.2025
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF 4TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE SRINAGAR

In the case of: Irjan Shafi

Plaintiff

VERSUS

Syed Mohsin Bukhari & Ors.

Defendants

In the matter of: - WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF

DEFENDANT NO. 1

May it please your Honour;

WRITTEN STATEMENT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. That the suit deserves outright dismissal on the count as the same is against
facts and circumstances of the case and dehors to rules and laws.

2. That, the defendant most respectfully submits before this Hon'ble Court that the
suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, both legally and factually, and
thus, deserves to be dismissed with costs.

3. That, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff, being the wife of the defendant
no. 1, has no locus standi to file the present suit as the transactions and
 agreements pertaining to the suit property were entered into by the defendant
no. 1, who is the husband of the plaintiff and the sole breadwinner of the family.

4. That, the claim of the plaintiff regarding the payment of the sale consideration
and subsequent actions taken on the suit property are misleading and devoid of
truth. It was, in fact, the defendant no. 1 who had entered into the oral
agreement with the defendants no. 2 and 3 for the purchase of the suit property
on behalf of himself and the plaintiff, with the intention to gift the property to
the plaintiff.

5. That, the defendant no. 1 had transferred the amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) towards the sale consideration of the suit
property, not the plaintiff. The said amount was transferred from the account of
the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff and then to the defendants no. 3 and 4, as per
the arrangement agreed upon between the defendant no. 1 and the defendants
no. 2 and 3. Of this amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) was paid
by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff to be forwarded to defendants no. 3 and 4,
Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Thirty Four Thousand Only) were
transferred directly by the defendant no. 1 himself, and Rs. 1,16,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh and Sixteen Thousand Only) was given in cash by defendant no. 1 to
defendant no. 3. Copies of the amount transferred from the account of the
defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff and to the defendants no. 3 and 4 are enclosed
herewith as Annexure-A.

6. That, the allegations made by the plaintiff regarding the construction and
possession of the suit property are incorrect. It was the defendant no. 1 who had
undertaken the construction activities on the suit property after receiving
 assurances from the defendants no. 2, 3, and 5 regarding the execution of the
sale deed in favor of the plaintiff as a gift from the defendant no. 1.

7. That, the defendant no. 1 had issued post-dated cheques amounting to Rs.
6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh) and an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) as a loan to the defendants no. 3, upon their request. These
transactions were made in good faith, based on the oral agreement and the
understanding that the sale deed would be executed in favor of the plaintiff.

8. That, upon realization that the defendants no. 2, 3, and 5 had failed to honor the
agreement and had further attempted to sell the suit property to a third party, the
defendant no. 1 rightfully took steps to cancel the issued cheques and recover
the transferred amounts, which were subsequently returned by the defendants
no. 2 and 3.

9. That, the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 vacated the suit property
immediately upon learning of its sale to a third party, who is now in possession
of the property, and the revenue extracts are also issued in his name, thereby
nullifying the plaintiff's claim over the suit property.

10.The plaintiff has misrepresented the facts and circumstances surrounding the
transaction and the oral agreement, thereby attempting to defraud the Hon’ble
Court and the defendants.

11.The plaintiff, not being the actual party to the transaction or the oral agreement,
lacks the locus standi to file the present suit.
12.The plaintiff has deliberately attempted to mislead the Hon’ble Court by
presenting distorted facts and concealing the true nature of the transactions and
agreements.

13.That, the suit filed by the plaintiff is a gross misrepresentation of facts and an
attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court, which warrants dismissal on the grounds
of fraud and misrepresentation.

14.That, the defendant prays for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds that the
plaintiff has failed to disclose the material facts, the suit is barred by law, and
the plaintiff lacks the locus standi to sue.

15.That, the defendant further prays that this Hon'ble Court may impose costs on
the plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit and for wasting the valuable time of
this Hon'ble Court.

PARA WISE REPLY

Para 1 is admitted to the extent that the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff's
claim of being a permanent resident of J&K. However, the defendant contests
the plaintiff's entitlement under the law as misrepresented in the plaint and
asserts that the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court has been improperly invoked
based on distorted facts.

Para 2 is admitted to the extent and clarified that the defendant no. 5 was indeed
the owner of the land in question. However, the involvement of the plaintiff as a
purchaser is factually incorrect. The transaction and the subsequent oral
agreement were initiated and conducted by defendant no. 1, who is the husband
of the plaintiff, with the intention of purchasing the property for their mutual
benefit.

Para 3 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted

that the assertion regarding the payment of sale consideration by the plaintiff is
fundamentally flawed. The payment was made by defendant no. 1, from his
earnings, as he is the sole financial provider. The plaintiff's claim of making
payments is a misrepresentation intended to mislead this Hon'ble Court.
Specifically, the defendant no. 1 had transferred the amount of Rs. 8,50,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) towards the sale consideration of
the suit property, not the plaintiff. The said amount was transferred from the
account of the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff and then to the defendants no. 3
and 4, as per the arrangement agreed upon between the defendant no. 1 and the
defendants no. 2 and 3. Of this amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only)
was paid by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff to be forwarded to defendants
no. 3 and 4, Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Thirty Four Thousand Only)
were transferred directly by the defendant no. 1 himself, and Rs. 1,16,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Sixteen Thousand Only) was given in cash by defendant
no. 1 to defendant no. 3.

Para 4 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted

that the construction and possession claimed by the plaintiff are, in reality,
actions undertaken by defendant no. 1. The plaintiff's involvement in these
activities is overstated and does not reflect the actual transaction and agreement
between the parties involved.
Para 5 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted
that the allegations of fraud and deceit against the defendants are baseless and
without merit. The plaintiff's portrayal of the events is a deliberate attempt to
mislead the Hon’ble Court and obtain an unjust advantage.

Para 6 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted

that the request for cooperation and assistance in transferring the property as per
the alleged oral agreement is disputed. The actual agreement and transactions
were conducted by defendant no. 1, and any claim by the plaintiff to the
contrary is incorrect.

Para 7 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted

that the legal obligations cited by the plaintiff are misdirected. The defendant
no. 1, being the actual party to the oral agreement, is the rightful person to seek
execution of the sale deed, not the plaintiff.

Para 8 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted

that the plaintiff's claim of being in possession and the defendants' efforts to sell
the property to another party are contested. The property was vacated by
defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff upon discovering the breach of agreement by
defendants no. 2, 3, and 5.

Para 9 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is submitted

that the cause of action as stated by the plaintiff is misleading. The actual cause
of action pertains to the breach of agreement by defendants no. 2, 3, and 5,
which directly affected defendant no. 1, not the plaintiff.
Para 10 is specifically and vehemently denied. In reply to this para it is
submitted that the plaintiff's assertion of the suit's emergent nature is based on
misrepresented facts. The real urgency pertains to the wrongful sale of the
property to a third party, which the plaintiff has failed to accurately disclose.

Para 11 is admitted to the extent that the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is not
disputed, but the basis on which it has been invoked by the plaintiff is
fundamentally flawed and misleading.

Para 12 is admitted to the extent that the valuation of the suit for injunction and
performance of contract is acknowledged, but the plaintiff's standing to claim
such relief is contested.

Para 13 is admitted to the extent that the defendant confirms that no such
suit/plaint in respect of the same subject matter is pending before any Hon’ble
Court or forum.

Para 14 is admitted to the extent that the defendant acknowledges the

procedural compliance by the plaintiff but contests the factual basis and merits
of the suit/plaint.

In light of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs for being non-maintainable,
based on misrepresentation, and an abuse of the process of law.
 b) Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

Defendant No. 1
THROUGH COUNSEL
M/s Jehangir Rehbar & Associates
Adv. Javaid Shah, Adv. Ahsan Kozgar
Advocates J&K High Court & Ladakh
Dated: 29.01.2025