• Challenging Registered Gift deed

Special Civil Suit challenging a Registered Gift Deed. The factual aspects of this matter are briefly narrated hereinafter. 

1.	My father Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar aged about 81 years was the owner of flat bearing No. B 306, on 3rd floor, and was member of Rukaiya Palace CHS Ltd. Near Masjid, Somwar Bazar, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064. He has gifted the aforesaid flat to his son Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar vide registered gift deed dated 09.09.2015 bearing registration receipt no. 10318 dated 11.09.2015 duly stamped and registered at Borivali-5. He was the sole owner of the flat and it was his self acquired property. 
2.	On 15.09.2015 Along with covering letter addressed to the society I have applied for the membership of the respondent society and submitted the copy of registered gift dated 09.09.2015, all forms, requisite fees cheques and original share certificate for transfer of flat in my name. 
3.	Further the limitation period of 90 days is also completed. However the society did not act rather willfully neglected and therefore I sent a reminder letter on 22.12.2015 to the society regarding the transmission / transfer of flat pursuant to the gift deed in my name and admit me as the member in place of my father Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar. 
4.	The respondent society replied reminder letter dated 22.12.2015 on 29.12.2016. The contents of the letter are folderol and without any standing of law. It clearly demonstrates their intentions to prolong my membership issue and harass me as far as they are able. 
5.	In view of the above facts I have left with no option and therefore on 04.01.2016 approached honorable Deputy Registrar P ward under Section 22 (2) & 23 of the MCS Act 1960, on for necessary orders, directions to the respondent society. 

6.	On 11.04.2016 my sister Mrs. Tanzeem Iqbal Parkar intervened the petition with the deputy registrar claiming her share in the said flat being legal heir of late Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar. She raised her objection against transfer of the said flat in my name making false allegations of fabricated gift deed and unsound mental condition of our late father at the time of execution of the gift deed and bogus documents submitted by me etc. as alleged by the respondent society.
7.	Eventually my sister and the respondent society miserably failed to prove contention and allegations made by them. Hence the Deputy Registrar “P ward” Mumbai rejected their intervention and submission and granted my application and on 31.05.2016 issued order declaring me as a member of the respondent society.  

8.	The respondent society has not obeyed & complied so far the order dated 31-05-2016 of honourable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai thereby transferring my name in the share certificate & other records of the society as they are hand-in-glove with my sister. 

9.	Therefore on 27th July 2016 I have filed a consumer complaint before Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Mumbai Suburban District against managing committee for deficiency of rendering services, and sought compensation of Rs. 50000/- for harassment caused to me. First date for hearing was 10th October 2016 but unfortunately Honourable Presiding officer was absent so the managing committee could not submit their say and the next date for hearing was given is 27th February 2017 due to huge pendency. I am appearing in person before consumer forum and society also has not appointed any lawyer so far. 

10.	On 13th December 2016 my sister filed vexatious and frivolous civil suit at City Civil Court Dindoshi challenging the authenticity and genuineness of the gift deed making false allegation of coercion, putting undue influence on the donor i.e. our father late Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar. Further she has stated that our father was a person of unsound mind and due to paralysis he was not able to hold a pen etc, etc. without having / providing any witness or evidence in support of her allegations and contentions. 






IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT 
DINDOSHI, GOREGAON MUMBAI
S. C. SUIT NO. 3334 OF 2016
1.	Mrs. Tanzeem Iqbal Parkar			         
Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife   		         
An adult Indian Inhabitant                               
Residing at Furus, Falsonda                              
Taluka: Khed, Dist: Ratnagiri 415710	          )……………….Plaintiff
			
                          Versus

1.	Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar		           
Age: 53 years, Occ: Business   	                         
An adult Indian Inhabitant	                         
Residing at B-306, Rukaiya Palace CHS Ltd   
Nr. Masjid, Somwar Bazar			         
Malad (West), Mumbai-400064                     
	
2.	Mrs. Kulsumbi Mohammed Parkar	         
Age: 76 years, Occ: Housewife 	                   
An adult Indian Inhabitant			         
Residing at Furus, Falsonda		         
Taluka: Khed, Dist: Ratnagiri 415710	  
       
3.	Mr. Sayeed Mohammed Parkar		         
Age: 51 years, Occ: Service			         
An adult Indian Inhabitant			         
Residing at Furus, Falsonda		         
Taluka: Khed, Dist: Ratnagiri 415710 
             
4.    Rukaiya Palace C.H.S. Ltd. 		                   
       Through the secretary 		                   
       Rukaiya Palace C.H.S. Ltd.		                   
       Nr. Masjid, Somwar Bazar                                
       Malad (West) Mumbai-400064		         )………………..Defendants
THE PLAINTIFF ABOVE NAMED RESPECTFULLY STATES AS UNDER:
I. DISPUTED PROPERTY:
That the flat bearing No.306 in wing “B” on 3rd floor admeasuring 62.4 sq.mtr. in the building known as “Rukaiya Palace” owned by Rukaiya Palace Co operative Housing Society situated near Masjid Somwar Bazar, Malad (w) Mumbai 400064 (hereinafter referred as the said flat) along with five fully paid up share certificate numbered from 106 to 110 (both included) of Rupees fifty each vide share certificate bearing no. 021 (herein after referred as the said shares) and the said flat and the said shares together hereinafter referred as the said premises. 
II. DISPUTED DOCUMENTS:   
That the gift deed executed on 9th September 2015 between Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar as Donor  and Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar as Donee and duly registered on 11th September 2015 through registration number. 39 M bearing Pawati number 10318 and document registration number BRL-5-9551-2015 before the office of Sub Registrar Borivali-5 of Mumbai Suburban Dist. Bandra consisting of 20 pages in total hereinafter referred as the said Gift Deed. 
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAINTIFF 
The Plaintiff is one of the legal heirs of the late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar, who was the original owner of the property in question and Plaintiff is also real sister of Defendant No.1, 3 and daughter of defendant No. 2 and one of the beneficiary of the disputed Property. 
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANT:
4.1. The defendant No.1 is one of the real brother of the plaintiff and Donee of the disputed documents i.e. the said gift deed dated 9th September 2015, which is duly registered on 11th September 2015 bearing No. BRL / 5 / 9551 /3 / 20 of 2015. 
4.2. The Defendant No. 2 and 3 are the Mother and other brother of the Plaintiff and they also entitled to the share in the disputed property. 
4.3. The Defendant No.4 is the Secretary of Rukaiya Palace Co Operative Housing Society which is duly registered under registration number BOM / WP/ HSC/ (TC) 7463 /93-94 and the authority who have power to transfer the disputed property on the basis of disputed documents. 

V. FACTS OF THE CASE: 
5.1. Plaintiff states that she is one of the legal heirs of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar who expired on 2nd March 2016 died intestate by leaving behind Defendant No. 3, 2, 1 and the Plaintiff as legal heirs. The Plaintiff crave leave to refer the said death certificate as and when required by the Court. 

5.2. The Plaintiff states that the said Gift Deed is the void document and the same is obtained by undue influence and illegal manner and no one else in the family was having knowledge about the same. The Plaintiff further states that her father always promised that the said premises is belongs to all the legal heirs and Plaintiff father used to stay at Furus, Falsonda 415710, Khed, Dist. Ratnagiri and the Plaintiff further states that the Defendant No.1 is in possession of the original document of the said Gift Deed. 
The copy of the said Gift Deed dated 9th September 2015 is marked and annexed as Annexure 1 hereto. 
5.3. The Plaintiff states that the said Gift Deed is falsely made and is made to exasperate the legal rights of the plaintiff and if the same is left outstanding then the same shall cause her serious injury as the said Gift Deed is registered by the Defendant No. 1 in illegal manner which is quite evident because the said deceased (Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar) was paralyzed since 7th November 2012 and was never into the condition / position to hold pen or do any other act independently. Besides that the thumb impression and the photograph background of the Donor is also craft the impression that the said document is invalid and illegal at the outset. The Plaintiff craves to leave to rely and refer medical documents of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar as and when required. 
5.4. The Plaintiff states that Defendant No.4 is likely to go for redevelopment process and the Defendant No.1 was having the knowledge of the same since inception and therefore to deprive the rights of other legal heirs and taking undue advantage of the redevelopment benefit for himself and his family Defendant No.1 by using undue influence on Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar and by also taking advantage of his medical condition obtained the said gift Deed from Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar.
5.5. The Plaintiff states that Defendant No.1 has waited till the death of his father to use the said Gift deed and to declare himself as sole owner of the said premises. The Plaintiff further states that Defendant No.1 have never mentioned to anyone about the said gift deed in his favour during the lifetime of his father otherwise other legal heirs would have taken appropriate steps to rectify the same.
5.6. The Plaintiff states that she was not a part of the said Gift deed in any manner and she was not having knowledge about the same till her brother filed complaint against the defendant No.4 in collusion to obtain some favourable order in favour of Defendant No.1.
5.7. The Plaintiff states that Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar was a person of unsound mind and a person who was dependable on others for his daily course. He was not having sound mind to take decision in any manner including deciding to make gift and register the same in favour of Defendant No.1. It is further submitted that the location / back ground of the photo of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar and his thumb impression is also create doubt on the validity and process of registration of the said gift deed. Besides that through the said Gift Deed there were no transfers of the said shares in favour of defendant No.1. So technically speaking rights to become one of the members of the society of Defendant No.1 does not arise only. It is therefore submitted that the said Gift Deed was executed under coercion or undue influence and therefore the said Gift deed may consider as non-enforceable and void. 
5.8. The Plaintiff submits that now the Defendant No. 1 is in possession of the disputed property and she is having an apprehension that the Defendant No. 1 may use the said Gift Deed to take advantage of the same and may be create third party rights or to get the compensation and other benefits from the prospective developers of the Defendant No.4 for himself alone. 
5.9. The Plaintiff states that the said Gift Deed is sham and nominal and confirms no title in favour of Defendant No.1 because its illegality and undue influence and coercion and now by using the said Gift Deed Defendant No.1 may sell the disputed property to get rid of the redundant disagreements with other family members.
5.10. The Plaintiff states that Defendant No.1 was well known that the said execution was wrong and he executed the same fraudulently with a view to induce Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar who was having no state of mind to understand the situation and the admission before the Sub Registrar is false and against the due process of law for registration of documents. 
5.11. The Plaintiff learned that Defendant No.1 has initiated appropriate steps to add his name as an sole owner of the said property and therefore she apprehended that she will be deprived of the said disputed property and said Gift Deed is left outstanding would cause serious injury to the Plaintiff. 
5.12. The Plaintiff states that she has issued notice through her advocate dated 23rd May 2016 to stop the Defendant and the same is duly served to the Defendants along with other addresses of the notice. The copy of the notice dated 23/05/2016 is marked and annexed as Annexure -2 hereto.  
5.13. The Plaintiff therefore claims to have the said Gift Deed adjudged void and cancelled. Plaintiff further states that the facts stated above established not only the commission of fraud, but also a cognizable crime as per the prevailing law. It is apparent that the Defendant No.1 have clouded and connived with the registrar of assurance to do several illegal and fraudulent acts, aimed at defrauding the plaintiff of their valuable rights by misusing the limited and specific Gift deed.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: 
The Plaintiff states that cause of action arose on 23rd May, 2016 when she learned about alleged Gift Deed and issue notice to all the defendants along with other addresses. It is further arise on 31st May 2016 wherein collusively Defendant No.4 and defendant No.1 have obtained order in favour of Defendant No.1 to deprive the rights of the legal heirs of deceased Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar and till date its continue. 
VII. LEGAL SUBMISSION: 
6.1. The Plaintiff states that the disputed property is situated in Mumbai; the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai, the alleged documents are registered in Mumbai and hence this Honorable court have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and therefore the Plaintiff submits that this Hon’ble Court have Jurisdiction to entertain try and dispose of the present suit. 
6.2. The Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has submitted Prima facia case against the Defendant and is thus entitled to seek protection from this Hon’ble Court. The Plaintiff has already suffered a huge irreparable harm and loss due to existence of illegal documents and adamant and unethical behaviour of the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff shall continue to suffer further grave and irreparable harm, loss and damage, if the reliefs as prayed for in the present suit are not granted. However no harm, loss or prejudice will be caused to the defendants if the relief as prayed for are granted to the Plaintiff. Thus the balance of convenience and equity are in favour of the Plaintiff.
6.3. Thus Plaintiff most respectfully submit that the Plaintiff in peculiar facts of the case have become entitled to declaration of this facts of the case have become entitled to declaration of this Hon’ble Court to the effect that the said Gift deed purportedly dated 9th September, 2016 which is Annexed -1 are fraudulent, illegal, null, void and has no effect or sanction in the eyes of law and are such as liable to be cancelled, set aside and rescinded and such as decree and direction of this Hon’ble Court accordingly.   
6.4. The Plaintiff submit that it is the fit case for permanent and temporary injunction and obtain order from this Hon’ble Court to restrain the Defendant No.1 from creating third party right, interest in the respect of disputed property.
6.5. The Plaintiff submit that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and no prejudice will cause to defendants, if the injunction as prayed for granted, however if such injunction is not granted, irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the plaintiff and the same cannot be compensated in terms of monetary consideration. The Plaintiff submits that grant of such injunction is not only just and also necessary in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
6.6. That there is no notice of Caveat and/or Caveat issued by the defendants to the plaintiff, in respect of the suit premises.
6.7. That the suit is not barred by law of limitation, and the suit is filed within time.
6.8. The Plaintiff values the suit at Rs.1000/- of the Court fees under section 6(iv) (j) of the Bombay Court Fess Act, and pays the same accordingly.
6.9. That the Plaintiff as not filed any other suit, either in this Hon’ble Court or in any court of law on very same cause of action.
6.10. The Plaintiff will rely upon the documents a list whereof is annexed hereto. 
6.11. The Plaintiff has not filed any other suit in any court against the defendant for the reliefs referred herein.
VIII. PRAYERS:
Therefore   it is humbly prayed that:-
I.	That the honourable court may be please declare that the gift deed duly registered on 11th September 2015 through registration number 39 M bearing receipt no. 10318 and document registration number BRL-5-9551-2015 before the office of Sub- Registrar Borivali-5 of Mumbai Suburban Dist. Bandra are fraudulent, illegal, null, void and has no effect of sectioned in the eyes of law and forthwith cancel, set aside and rescind the same.
II.	Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit this Honourable Court may be pleased to restrict the defendant no.4 i.e. the society to any change the respect of  disputed property or its documents and share certificate in the name of defendant no. 1 i.e. Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar.
III.	Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit defendant no.1 shall be restricted to use the said gift deed in any manner to deprive rights of the plaintiff. 
IV.	Defendant no.1 is directed to deposit the gift deed dated 9th September 2015 custody of this Honourable Court till final disposal of this suit. 
V.	To grant ad-interim relief in term of prayer (ii), (iii) and (iv).
VI.	Cost of the suit be provided.
VII.	Such further and other relief as the facts and circumstances of the case may deem fit and proper.     
             
11.	I have appointed a team of four Learned Lawyers to plead and appear on my behalf and our Written Statement is as Follows. 
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.  1
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR
1.	At the very outset defendant no. 1 states that the plaint filed by plaintiff is false, vexatious, bad in law and absolutely not maintainable and having no ground at all for relief claimed by her therein. 

2.	The defendant no. 1 submits that, the allegations made in the plaint are false, baseless, without any proof and hence plaintiff should not be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong. 

3.	With reference to paragraph no. I of the plaint the defendant no. 1 states that the Flat no. 306 in B wing, on 3rd Floor in the building Rukaiya Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. is not owned by Rukaiya Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. but the “said premises” is now owned by defendant no. 1 vide registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015 and he is a deemed member of Rukaiya Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as per order dated 31-05-2016 issued by honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit -‘1’ i.e. the order dated 31-05-2016 issued by honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai. 

4.	With reference to paragraph no. II of the plaint the defendant no. 1 states that it is strongly denied that the registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015 is a “Disputed Document”. The plaintiff herself states that the registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015 is duly accepted by the donee i.e. defendant no. 1 and registered before the office of sub-registrar Borivali-5 of Mumbai Suburban District (Bandra).

5.	With reference to paragraph no. III of the plaint the defendant no. 1 vehemently denies that the plaintiff is one of the beneficiary of Flat no. 306 in B wing, on 3rd Floor in the building Rukaiya Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. i.e. the “said premises”, because late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar i.e. the father of defendant no. 1, 3 & plaintiff & husband of defendant no.2 had duly executed registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015 in favour of defendant no.1 excluding defendant no. 2, 3 & plaintiff.

6.	With reference to paragraph no. IV (4.1) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 strongly denies & objects that he is not the donee of “Disputed Document” i.e. the registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015, but in reality he is the real & the genuine donee of the duly registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015, as the same has been given by his late father out of love & affection towards him, as he had exclusively taken care of his father till his last breath. 

7.	With reference to paragraph no. IV (4.2) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 strongly denies that defendant no. 2, 3 & plaintiff herself are entitled to the share in the “said premises”. The defendant no. 1 once again submits that he has taken due care of his father till his expiry and that is the reason before his death he has exclusively gifted the “said premises” to him as a token of love and appreciation. The plaintiff have on her own involved & made party to her mother i.e. defendant no. 2 & her brother i.e. defendant no. 3 unnecessary without their will & wish and dragged them before this honorable court even though they are aware of the real situation and do not wish to take any unnecessary objection on the gift deed dated 09-09-2015.

The Plaintiff has submitted in her intervener application dated 11-04-2016 filed before honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai that they being Muslim by religion her widow mother is under iddat period and once the same is over she also will be taking objection to the gift deed dated 09-09-2015 but in the present suit the plaintiff had made her defendant no. 2 because  she refused to joined as plaintiff no. 2 along with her as she wish to honour the last wishes of her husband who has gifted the “said premises” to one of her beloved son and she is fully aware that the gift deed is validly executed & registered voluntarily by her late husband who is the donor in gift deed dated 09-09-2015 and defendant no. 1 is the donee in the said deed. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit-2 is the copy of intervener application before honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies ‘P’ Ward Mumbai.   

8.	With reference to paragraph no. IV (4.3) of the plaint the defendant no.1 states  that the defendant no.4 has presently lost the authority to make any decision concerning the transfer of the “said premises” in his name because already he has been declared as deemed member and the defendant no. 4 has been ordered to duly enter his name in the share certificate & other records of the society vide order dated 31-05-2016 of honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai.
The defendant no. 4 has still not obeyed & complied the order dated 31-05-2016 of honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai thereby transferring the name of defendant no. 1 in the share certificate & other records of the society as they are hand-in-glove with plaintiff.
9.	With reference to paragraph no. V (5.1) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 admits that defendant no. 1, 2, 3 & plaintiff are the legal heirs of late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar and he died on 02.03.2016. 

10.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.2) & (5.3) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that:-

(a)	The plaintiff has neither explained nor given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court as how the registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015 executed between Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar (father /donor) and defendant no. 1 (son/donee) is VOID.

(b)	The plaintiff has neither explained nor given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court as how the defendant no. 1 had put UNDUE INFLUENCE upon his father late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar to execute & duly registered the gift deed on 09-09-2015 in his favour that too before the sub-registrar who is the government authority.

(c)	The plaintiff has neither explained nor given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court as how the defendant no. 1 had in ILLEGAL MANNER and by COERCION had obtained a duly registered gift deed on 09-09-2015 in his favour from his father late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar before the sub-registrar who is the government authority.

(d)	The plaintiff has not cited any citation or law wherein the donor has to inform other legal heirs before or after the execution & registration of a gift deed. 

(e)	The plaintiff has not given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court regarding the promise made by their father late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar concerning the “said premises” will be belong to all his legal heirs.

(f)	The plaintiff has not given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court regarding the permanent residence of their father late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar.

(g)	The plaintiff has not obtained the copy of duly registered gift deed on 09-09-2015 from defendant no. 1 and not from the sub-registrar office as there is no stamp of “certified copy” on the copy marked as Annexure 1 to the plaint. Neither the said copy is obtained through R.T.I. application as the same does not bear that stamp. Thus it is obvious that the said copy is submitted to plaintiff by defendant no. 4 who is hand-in-glove with plaintiff. The plaintiff & defendant no. 4 are put to the strictest proof regarding the exchange of gift deed copy submitted by defendant no. 1.

(h)	The plaintiff has not given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court regarding the statement that their father/donor of gift deed dated 09-09-2015 due to paralysis could not hold pen during the execution of gift deed dated 09-09-2015.
(i)	 The plaintiff has not given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court regarding how the thumb impression and the background of the photo of their father/donor of gift deed 09-09-2015 is CRAFTED.

(j)	The plaintiff is requested to produce the MEDICAL DOCUMENTS showing that their father/donor of gift deed dated 09-09-2015 due to paralysis could not hold the pen during the execution of gift deed dated 09-09-2015. 

The plaintiff has NOT PROVIDED or ANNEXED any evidence (written or witness) regarding her allegations as made in paragraph nos. V (5.2) & (5.3) of the plaint. 

Thus it can be seen that the plaintiff has only made false allegations without any proof and prays before this honorable court to believe the same.

The plaintiff utterly repudiates disregards & contests a duly registered document merely by few words like VOID, COERCION, UNDUE INFLUENCE, ILLEGAL MANNER etc. etc.
The defendant no. 1 states that:- 
(a)	The gift deed dated 09-09-2015 executed between Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar (father /donor) and defendant no. 1 (son/donee) is ACCEPTED BY THE DONEE.

(b)	The gift deed dated 09-09-2015 executed between Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar (father /donor) and defendant no. 1 (son/donee) is DULY REGISTERED before the office of sub-registrar Borivasli-5 of Mumbai Suburban District (Bandra).  Both the parties remaining present there and having clicked their photographs and submitted their thumb impressions and signed the documents and the same are authenticated & acknowledged by 2 WITNESSES and the sub-registrar officer, himself. 

11.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.4) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the plaintiff once again have not given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court regarding the redevelopment of defendant no. 4 i.e. the society. The plaintiff is just making false statements without any supporting proof and wish the honorable court shall believe her false statements, contentions & allegations made in the plaint. 

12.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.5) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the honorable court can see how the plaintiff is making a false allegations & allegations one after the 
other from her own statement that the defendant no. 1 had waited till the death of their father to use the said gift deed & declare him as sole owner of the “said premises” and never disclose the gift deed to any legal heir of their father.
The defendant no. 1 had forwarded the registered gift deed dated 09-09-2015 executed between Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar (father /donor) and defendant no. 1 (son/donee) to the defendant no. 4 society on 15-09-2015 and their father Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar (father /donor) expired on 02-03-2016 i.e. after 5 ½ months after submission of the gift deed to the defendant no. 4 society. Moreover the gift deed made by father to son is irrevocable as per the ruling of apex court. 
13.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.6) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the plaintiff had filed intervener application before honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai and her plea was recorded, considered & rejected. The defendant no. 1 states that not he but the plaintiff & defendant no. 4 are in collusion.
14.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.7) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the reply to allegations made in this para is already given herein above in para no. 10. Further defendant no. 1 submits that the plaintiff once again have not given any evidence (written or witness) to this honorable court regarding unsound mind of the donor Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar. Further defendant no. 1 states that old age and physical disability is not synonymous with 'mental unfitness' under the law. Mere fact that Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar was 81 years old and physically disabled i.e. left side paralyzed does not lead to a presumption that he was mentally unsound also. 

15.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.8) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the defendant no. 1 have become deemed member as per the order dated 31-05-2016 issued by honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai. 
The defendant no. 1 would also like to bring to the notice of this honorable court that on 31-05-2016 the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai vide his order has ordered defendant no. 4 to make him bonafide member of the society and enter his name on the share certificate as well as in other records of the society. 
The defendant no. 4 have failed rather wilfully neglected to comply the order dated 31-05-2016 passed by the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai. 
On the application of the defendant no. 1 the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai have once again vide his letter dated 29-07-2016 have directed defendant no. 4 to comply with his order dated 31-05-2016 and accordingly submit a report in their office. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit-3 is the copy of letter dated 29.07.2016 issued by honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies ‘P’ Ward Mumbai to defendant no.4.    
Once again the defendant no. 4 have failed to comply the directions given by the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai on 29-07-2016 to defendant no.4. 
The honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai have once again vide his letter dated 19-09-2016 using his powers u/s 79 (2) (a) of Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act 1960 have directed defendant no. 4 to make defendant no. 1 the bonafide member of society and enter his name on the share certificate as well as in other records of the society. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit-4 is the copy of letter dated 19.09.2016 issued by honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies ‘P’ Ward Mumbai to defendant no.4.   
Once again the defendant no. 4 have failed to comply the direction given by the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai on 19-09-2016.
The honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai have once again vide his letter dated 10-11-2016 using his powers u/s 79 (2) (b) of Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act 1960 have appointed special officer and ordered him to make defendant no. 1 the bonafide member of society i.e. defendant no. 4 by entering his name on the share certificate as well as in other records of the society. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit-5 is the copy of letter dated 10.11.2016 issued by honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies ‘P’ Ward Mumbai to defendant no.4.   
Accordingly Shri Sanjay L. Adarkar special officer vide his letter dated 12-12-2016 have informed the society i.e. defendant no. 4 that he shall be coming on 16-12-2016 between 10 to 11 am and one of the committee members shall remain present with the records of the society to enter the name of defendant no. 1 in all the records of the society. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit-6 is the copy of letter dated 12.12.2016 issued by Shri. Sanjay L. Adarkar special officer of honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies ‘P’ Ward Mumbai.   
Once again the defendant no. 4 have failed to co-operate the special officer deputed by the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai.
Thus it can be seen that defendant no. 4 is not co-operating defendant no. 1 thereby trying to settle their own grudges against him co-operating the plaintiff, thereby harassing the defendant no. 1 who is a law abiding citizen.
16.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.9) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the defendant no. 1 submits that he has already exhaustively explained that the gift deed dated 09-09-2015 is validly executed and duly registered as per the prevailing law and also the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai has declared him as DEEMED MEMBER of defendant no. 4. The defendant no. 1 further submit that there is absolutely no disagreement within the family i.e. the defendant no. 1, 2 & 3, it is the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the decision of their father /husband late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar and have been approaching courts without any evidence supporting her false allegations.

17.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.10) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that the reply to allegations made in this para is already given herein above in para no. 10. It can be seen by this honorable court that in the entire plaint the plaintiff has just played with the words like VOID, ILLEGAL MANNER, UNDUE INFLUENCE, UNSOUND MIND, and COERCION etc. etc. without any supporting exhibit/document and just cooked up a false story. 
18.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.11) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies the entire para in toto and further submits that he is now the sole owner of the “said premises” as per the last wish of their father /husband late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar and once again it is submitted that even the honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai has made him a deemed member of the society i.e. the defendant no. 4 vide their order dated 31-05-2016.

19.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.12) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 admits that he has received a legal notice dated 23-05-2016 from plaintiff’s advocate and to which he has exhaustively replied on 23-06-2016. It is further submitted that there is no rejoinder to the above reply till date. It shall be noted that the plaintiff has send the notice dated 23-05-2016 to  defendant no. 1, honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai, The State of Maharashtra through Sub-registrar, Borivali MSD-Mumbai, defendant no. 4 & to Dr.  Prashant Patil, however only defendant no. 1 has replied her notice dated 23-05-2016. Further if the plaintiff was genuinely aggrieved then she would have made all of them parties to this present suit so that her case would have been crystal clear, but purposely she has not joined them in the present suit. Annexed herein & marked Exhibit -7 i.e. the reply notice dated 23-06-2016 of defendant no.1. 

20.	With reference to paragraph nos. V (5.13) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 strongly denies the same and further states that he has already explained in para no. 10 herein above as to how the plaintiff’s claim is false & misleading & how the said gift deed dated 09-09-2015 is validly executed etc. etc. The plaintiff herein is making false allegations against a respectable sub-registrar officer (a government employee) and though send legal notice to him have failed & purposely neglected to make him necessary party in the present suit. The defendant no.1 requests this honorable court to allow plaintiff to make amendment of the plaint for adding more & necessary parties according to her.

21.	With reference to paragraph nos. VI of the plaint the defendant no. 1 states that the plaintiff has signed before the notary on 11-04-2016 of her intervener application filed before honorable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ ward Mumbai and now here she is stating that she became aware of the execution & registration of gift deed dated 09-09-2015 on 23-05-2016 and therefore the cause of action has arisen on 23-05-2016, which is absolutely contradictory statement by her and from this the honorable court can see the truthness of the case. 

22.	With reference to paragraph no. VII (7.1 wrongly typed as 6.1) of the plaint the defendant no.1 does not wish to comment as the same is for the consideration of this honorable court.

23.	With reference to paragraph nos. VII (7.2, 7.3, 7.4 & 7.5 wrongly typed as 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 & 6.5) of the plaint the defendant no. 1 denies all paras vehemently and further submits that no case has been made out by the plaintiff to entitle her to seek protection from this honorable court by her prayers, as she has just made false allegations, submissions & contentions without supporting any evidence. The plaintiff has not suffered any kind of loss due to the gift deed dated 09-09-2015, but it will be the defendant who will suffer irreparable harm, loss & damage if the reliefs as prayed in the present suit are granted in favour of the plaintiff as the gift deed is validly executed, duly registered & attested by 2 witnesses as per the requirement of property laws. The defendant no. 1 will be at loss even after following the transfer procedure completely as per the prevailing laws.

24.	With reference to paragraph nos. VII (7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10 & 7.11 wrongly typed as 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10 & 6.11) of the plaint the defendant no.1 does not wish to comment as the same is for the consideration of this honorable court. 

25.	With reference to paragraph nos. VIII of the plaint the defendant no. 1 most humbly & respectfully submits before this honorable court that the prayers (ad-interim, interim & final)  from i to vii as prayed by the plaintiff in the present suit shall not be allowed as the plaintiff has merely made false accusations, submissions, contentions & allegations against this defendant without a single evidence that late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar i.e. the father of defendant no. 1, 3 & plaintiff & husband of defendant no.2  and the donor was of unsound mind & physically incapable of executing & registering the gift deed dated 09-09-2015 in favour of defendant no.1. Thus the plaintiff has failed to prove all her allegations made in the present suit and therefore this honorable court shall REJECT all the prayers (ad-interim, interim & final) from i to vii as prayed by the plaintiff in the present suit, thereby DISMISSING the suit in limine with heavy cost for filling frivolous, mischievous & misleading suits thereby causing mental torture & physical as well as financial harassment to the present defendant no. 1.

26.	The defendant no. 1 humbly submits and prays before this honorable court that this written statement shall also be treated as reply to ad-interim/interim to notice of motion/application taken out by the plaintiff herein. 

Place:-Goregaon, Mumbai
Date: 5th January 2017	

[Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar]
    Defendant No. 1 

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS:   
Plaintiff’s Lawyer sent me a notice to remain present at 2.45 pm on 5th January 2017 as he shall press ad-interim relief in aforesaid matter. When we met plaintiff’s lawyer in Court campus on 5th January 2017 he asked my lawyer if your client have any proposal for compromise. We bluntly turned down his offer and asked him to proceed further with legal course. We submitted our written statement and after going through our written statement he asked for next date for argument. Honorable Court gives us next date i.e. 11th January 2017. 
On 11th January when we met plaintiff’s lawyer again he asked my lawyer if we have any proposal for compromise. Once again we rejected his offer and ask him to proceed further. Our matter was on the first number after lunch break i.e. 2:45 pm. Then plaintiff’s lawyer requested my lawyer to wait for ten-fifteen minutes as he is going to Court Room No.3 to take date in other matter. But he did not come back till 4 pm therefore court granted us next date 16th January. Plaintiff’s lawyer said 16th January is not was suitable for me so the court granted us next date 25th January 2017 for arguments on ad-interim relief as prayed by the plaintiff. 
In fact plaintiff’ does not have any evidence or witness in support of her allegations and contentions so her lawyer is helpless and he is playing with delaying tactics. 

Further on 25th January 2017 our points for argument would be as under:
1). At the very outset I submit that the plaint filed by plaintiff is false, vexatious, bad in law and absolutely not maintainable and having no ground at all for relief claimed by her therein. 

2).Further I submit that, the allegations made in the plaint are false, baseless, without any proof and hence plaintiff should not be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong.
 
3).I submit that from perusal of rival submission it is evident that Plaintiff had not approached this honorable court in good faith and with clean hands and would like to achieve indirectly in this speculative and vexatious suit which could not be achieved directly in collusion with defendant no.4 the society. 

4).Further I submit that, Medical tests reports, hospital OPD card and or treatment track record of late Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar do not show any diagnose or treatment for mental disorder or unsound mental condition. It established the fact that despite his physical disability he was in sound state of mind. Further it is certified by consultant physician Dr. Prashant Patil (M.D) on 8th September 2015 stating that Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar is under my treatment and regardless of his physical disability he is able to read, write, understand everything and express his views independently. 

5).Further I submit that, Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar the Donor himself executed written affidavit on 09.09.2015 before competent authority. He admitted that he had executed the registered gift deed and relinquished and surrendered his all rights, title and interest of flat bearing No. B 306, Rukaiya Palace CHS Ltd. in favour of his son Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar. Further in the aforesaid affidavit Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar stated that he has no objection if the concerned society transfer the membership, share certificate and maintenance receipt in respect of the said flat in the name of Mr. Aslam Mohammed Parkar.

6).Further I submit that Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar was a person of sound mind and he himself admitted the execution of the registered gift deed, and did not even challenge the gift deed during his lifetime and allowed the gift deed to stand as legal and valid gift deed. Therefore allegations made by plaintiff that the gift deed was obtained by coercion, illegal means and or by fraud are baseless and do not have any standing of law. Hence, strong probability exist that plaintiff has no ultimate chance of success in the suit and has no prima facia case. 

7).Further I submit that all mandatory conditions of a gift deed have been complied and the gift deed is duly stamped and registered thus the said gift deed is a valid & operative. 
 
8).Further Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld in the matter of Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker vs Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker & ... on 10 September, 1996 “The execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the property, together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property”.  

9).I submit that in view of aforesaid apex court ruling, herein defendant no.1 is absolute owner of the suit property with clear marketable title as registered gift deed is legally acceptable title transferring document hence the suit property is not disputed at all and plaintiff has no legal right in the suit property hence dispute raised by plaintiff is unwarranted and not bonafide.  

10).Further I submit that plaintiff has neither placed any material before this honorable court to established the fact about actual irreparable loss or injury caused to her due to execution and existence of the said gift deed nor she has explained how she shall continue to suffer irreparable harm, loss and damage if the said gift deed is left outstanding and reliefs as prayed for are not granted?  

11).I submit that on the contrary if the reliefs as prayed by the plaintiff are granted it will adversely affect defendant No.1 who is honest and law abiding person and he will be deprived of fundamental rights for which he could not be adequately compensated and will be restrained from obtaining deemed membership of the society which is oblique motive of defendant no.4 and the plaintiff in collusion which they want to achieve in this suit. Hence the balance of convenience is in favour of defendant no. 1. 
 
12).I submit that, after accepting plea of defendant no.1 and considering and rejecting submission of defendant no. 4 and intervention of the plaintiff Hon’ble Deputy Registrar P Ward Mumbai approved deemed membership of defendant no.1 and issued orders repeatedly to defendant no.4 to enter name of defendant no. 1 on the share certificate and other record of the society. 
  
13).Further I submit that, defendant no.4 wilfully neglected aforesaid orders to prolong this issue and indirectly supporting plaintiff as they are sailing in the same boat with secret agenda to harass and stop defendant no.1 from obtaining membership of defendant no.4 the society. Further defendant no.4 did not challenge legality and validity of the aforesaid orders before any forum therefore aforesaid orders are operative and govern the issue.     
  
14).I submit that, in view of the above facts it is clearly evident that plaintiff had filed this frivolous suit just for the sake of her ego and pride and to harass defendant no.1 in collusion with defendant no.4.
 
15).Further I submit that, said gift deed is not a disputed document and the suit property is not a disputed property and dispute raised by the plaintiff is not bonafide thus she doesn’t have any prima facia case.  

16).Further I submit that, neither plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss / injury nor she will suffer further loss if the reliefs as prayed by her are not granted. If the reliefs as prayed by the plaintiff are granted it will adversely affect defendant no.1 and he would suffer greater inconvenience. Hence the balance of convenience and equity are in favour of defendant no. 1.   

17).In view of the above I humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court that all prayers of the plaintiff shall be rejected at the outset and dismiss the suit with heavy cost.      
List of Documents Defendant no, 1 relies upon: 
1). Original Gift deed, it is a registered gift deed and Registration of document evidences that the document is genuine. Further the entire process of execution of the Gift Deed is attested by two witnesses and their evidence is admissible in the Court. 
2). Order issued by Honourable Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society ‘P’ wards Mumbai on 31.05.2016 and subsequent orders declaring Defendant No.1 as a deemed member of the respondent society.  
3). Medical tests reports, hospital OPD card and or treatment track record of  late Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar.
4).Fitness Certificate by Dr. Prashant Patil (M.D) on 8th September 2015 Consultant Physician of Mr. Mohammed Abdulgafoor Parkar. 
5).Written affidavit executed on 09.09.2015 by Mr. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor Parkar before Notary. 
I believe in being honest and treat everyone with respect. I have faith in Judiciary and firmly believe that laws are to seek Justice not to teach lesson to others but at the same time culprits of similar kind must be punished. My questions to learned and respected lawyers of this website are:
1). Plaintiff has to convince the court that she has prima facia case and she has suffered irreparable loss and balance of convenience is in her favour but to be on safer side is there anything to add in my argument? Shall I submit a written argument on 25th January 2017 or verbal argument is enough? 
2). No doubt to grant or to reject ad-interim relief is discretion power of the honourable court which shall be used judiciously and limited by three mandatory conditions. In view of above facts what are chances of plaintiff’s success in the present suit and to obtain ad-interim relief as prayed by her?    
3). Can I file a suit for damage against plaintiff if she fails to prove allegations made by her? If yes, under which law or act & section? How much amount I can claim against damage?
4). Apart from consumer complaint what are the additional remedies available to punish severely autocratic managing committee? 
5). Can I file criminal suit or civil suit for damage against managing committee?  If yes, under which law, act and section? How much amount I can claim against damage?  Shall I wait till membership process is completed? 
6). Can the existing managing committee members resign after filing suit against them and escape safely? 
7). Are the existing managing committee members answerable and accountable for their misdeeds even after resigning from committee or in case they are dismissed by Deputy Registrar? 
8).What is the possible outcome of this suit in your opinion?