1. The proforma defendant No. 2 is the mother and was natural guardian of the plaintiff at all material times. The plaintiff was born in 1965 and has attained majority on 15.5.1983.
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
2. The plaintiff owned the property described in the Schedule below. The said pro-forma defendant 2 has sold to the defendant No. 1 the said schedule on 13.4.1981 by executing a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
3. The said sale by the pro-forma defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. I was not for any legal necessity.
4. That the cause of action for this suit arose on 13.4.1981 (date of sale) and thereafter on 15.5.1983 (when the plaintiff attained majority) at Visakhapatnam within the jurisdiction of this court.
5. Suit valuation Rs. 1,00,000/- (amount of consideration).
The plaintiff prays:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) That the sale by the pro-defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 be set aside,
(ii) For possession of the said schedule property,
(iii) For costs &
(iv) Such other relief that the court may deem fit and proper.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Written Statement:
1. It is true that the second defendant was the mother and natural guardian of the plaintiff. It is also true that the second defendant sold away plaint schedule property to the defendant. The first defendant however, denies that the second defendant did not sell the property for legal necessities.
2. The first defendant submits that the plaintiff was about to join in B. Tech., by paying donation to join in Engineering College, Manipal. The second defendant needed money to pay donation for her son. In order to raise funds, the second defendant sold schedule property to the first defendant. Thus, the sale of schedule property by the second defendant was for legal necessities.
3. Further, the sale was not a distress sale at all. The schedule property was purchased by the first defendant at Rs. 1,00,000/- which is costlier than the market value of the land. The first defendant who was urgently in need of site was forced to pay heavier price. Thus, the site is not vitiated even on the ground of fraud.
4. In the above said circumstances, the first defendant begs and submits that the suit may be dismissed with costs.