FACTS OF THE CASE
HISTORY OF PROPERTY
Details of the Property
That the plaintiffs are co-owners and in possession of a residential property admeasuring
300.16 square meters, bearing House No. 49, situated at Nirmaan Nagar, Jogiyaan,
Pargana, Tehsil & District Bareilly.
Boundaries of the Property in Question:
East – Rasta Sarkari (Chandpur Road)
West – Plot No. 50
North – Plot No. 51
South – Plot No. 47
For the sake of brevity and ease of reference, the aforesaid property shall hereinafter be
referred to as the “Property in Question.”
Present Ownership of the Property
(a) Plaintiff No. 1:
That Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of an undivided ½ share in the Property in Question,
having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner Smt. Sonia Sharma W/o Shashi Kant
Sharma, R/o 60, Cantonment Board, Bareilly, by way of a registered sale deed dated
08.12.2021, duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bareilly at Book No. 1, Volume
13058, Pages 207 to 224, Sl. No. 17587.
(b) Plaintiff No. 2:
That Plaintiff No. 2 is also the owner of an undivided ½ share in the Property in Question,
having similarly purchased the same from Smt. Sonia Sharma vide registered sale deed
dated 08.12.2021, duly registered at Book No. 1, Volume 13058, Pages 171 to 188, Sl. No.
17585, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bareilly.
Chain of Title and Previous Ownership
(a) Ownership of Sonia Sharma (Predecessor-in-Title):
That the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-title, Smt. Sonia Sharma, acquired the Property in
Question from its previous owners, namely:
1. Shri Gopesh Sharma S/o Shri Ganga Sahai Sharma, R/o Mohalla Chaubey, Tehsil
& District Badaun
2. Smt. Anju Sharma @ Anju Dixit W/o Shri Rajesh Dixit, R/o Dixit Medical Store,
Station Road, Farrukhabad
3. Smt. Shweta Sharma W/o Shri Pankaj Sharma, R/o Bazigaran City, Moradabad
4. Smt. Sapna Sharma W/o Shri Suneel Sharma, R/o Village & Post Nozalpur,
District Sindrarau
5. Shri Amit Sharma S/o Shri Gopesh Sharma, R/o Mohalla Chaubey, Tehsil &
District Badaun
All of the above executed a registered sale deed dated 12.05.2010 in favour of Smt. Sonia
Sharma, acting through their real father and Power of Attorney holder Shri Gopesh
Sharma, registered at Book No. 1, Volume 3461, Pages 395 to 430, Sl. No. 4406, in the
office of Sub-Registrar, Bareilly.
(b) Ownership of Manju Sharma (Original Purchaser):
That prior to this, the Property in Question was purchased as a plot by Smt. Manju Sharma
W/o Shri Gopesh Sharma from Tulsi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Bareilly, through its
Secretary Shri Hukum Singh S/o Bhairo Singh, R/o Rohli Tola, Bareilly, vide registered
sale deed dated 02.09.1988 (Book No.1, Volume 2909, Page 148, Additional Book No.1,
Volume 2915, Pages 87 to 98, Sl. No. 10981), registered in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Bareilly.
The said plot formed part of Khasra Nos. 72 to 76 situated at Nawada Jogiyan, Bareilly,
and was identified as Plot No. 49 among several plots carved out by Tulsi Sahkari Awas
Samiti.
(c) Succession and Legal Heirship:
After the purchase, Smt. Manju Sharma constructed part of the residential structure on the
said plot. She passed away on 09.10.2006, leaving behind:
Her husband Shri Gopesh Sharma, and
Her children: Smt. Anju Sharma @ Anju Dixit, Smt. Shweta Sharma, Smt. Sapna
Sharma, and Shri Amit Sharma,
who jointly inherited the property.
The children, by way of registered Power of Attorney dated 06.08.2009, appointed their
father Shri Gopesh Sharma as their lawful attorney (Book No. 4, Volume 38, Pages 345 to
364, Sl. No. 72, registered on 06.08.2009 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bareilly), enabling
him to sell the property to Smt. Sonia Sharma in 2010.
At the time of purchase, the plaintiffs acquired the land with an existing structure consisting
of two rooms and a bathroom on the ground floor, and two rooms, a latrine, and a bathroom
on the first floor, situated on a small rear portion of the land.
Plaintiffs' Construction Plan
The plaintiffs, intending to build a residential house on the property purchased via sale deeds
dated 08.12.2021, applied for building map approval. After obtaining the P.W.D. NOC on
13.06.2024, the map (File No. B.D.A./BP/23-24/0643) was sanctioned by the Bareilly
Development Authority on 03.09.2024.
To construct as per the sanctioned plan, the plaintiffs lawfully demolished the old structure
and are now developing the property accordingly.
Malafide Intentions of the Defendant
That with the passage of time, the value of the property has significantly increased as it is
situated in a developed residential colony. Consequently, certain land mafias have developed
an ill-intentioned interest in the property. The defendant, who is engaged in real estate
business, has, for the past month, been illegally pressuring the plaintiffs to sell the property to
him at a grossly undervalued price, which the plaintiffs have consistently refused. It is
submitted that the defendant neither has any ownership rights nor is in possession of even a
single inch of the property.
That the defendant, having political affiliations, is misusing his influence with malafide
intent to usurp the plaintiffs' property by illegal means. The defendant appears determined to
grab the property by hook or by crook.That, to the plaintiffs’ utter shock, on 28.03.2025, the
defendant, accompanied by several laborers and anti-social elements, unlawfully attempted to
trespass onto the property and forcibly interfere with the development work being carried out
by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, with the assistance of nearby residents, successfully resisted
and thwarted the defendant’s unlawful attempt.
That the defendant and his associates have since threatened the plaintiffs that they would
make another attempt to forcibly dispossess them using greater force. Despite the plaintiffs'
lawful ownership and their appeal to the defendant to refrain from interference, the defendant
refused to heed such requests. The plaintiffs, being lawful owners in peaceful possession, are
fully entitled to enjoy and develop the property, and the defendant, having no right, title,
interest, or possession over the property, has no authority to cause any hindrance or
interference.
Police Inaction and Collusion with Defendant
That the plaintiffs immediately approached the local police at P.S. Baradari, Bareilly;
however, it appeared that the police were acting hand in glove (in close collusion) with the
defendant. The police refused to intervene or register any complaint against the defendant,
citing the matter as being within the purview of the Civil Court.
Defendant's Unlawful Threats and Necessity of Suit
That the defendant has no right to interfere with the plaintiffs’ lawful and peaceful possession
of the property in question, nor to obstruct the ongoing development work. Despite requests,
the defendant remains adamant and is openly threatening to unlawfully dispossess the
plaintiffs. Left with no alternative due to the defendant's conduct, the plaintiffs are compelled
to file the present suit.
Cause of action
That the cause of action arose on 28.03.2025, when the defendant, accompanied by several
laborers and anti-social elements, unlawfully attempted to enter and interfere with the
plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and development activities at property no. 49, Nirmaan
Nagar, Jogiyaan, Pargana, Tehsil & District Bareilly. The plaintiffs promptly resisted this
illegal act. The cause of action is continuing, and this Hon’ble Court has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit.
VALUATION
That for the purpose of jurisdiction, the value of the suit is assessed at Rs. 40,00,000/-, being
the approximate market value of the property. A court fee of Rs. 500/- is affixed on the relief
of permanent injunction as per law.
