MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff is resident of address … Delhi -10055 and has been in occupation and possession thereof since the year 2000 and has got his Voter Identity Card and Ration Card prepared from government authorities. Plaintiff has also got installed electricity connection bearing K No. …. from office of defendants BSES Yamuna power Limited on basis of his ration card, voter Identity card and required documents.
1.1. The said Property was purchased from Mr. def, who is very much different from the individual named Mr.zzz, whose Meter No. K… also had been burdened upon the Plaintiff, resulting in this litigation.
1.2. The house of the Plaintiff and other disputed meter or Mr.zzz is located at a distance of ……, which are not side-by-side or at different sides of the same street. It is not possible to supply illegal electricity between these two houses. A site plan dated…. to prove this alleged fact is filed with this Suit. In the Notice issued by the Defendant, to the Plaintiff (Exihibits…) also, no site plan or route is described as to how illegal supply of electricity is possible between these two houses.
2. That in the month of December 2008 plaintiff was served with a legal notice vide no. ….. dated 18-12-2008 stating
(i) That at the afore said premises one electricity connection was installed vide K No. ……… in the name of Mr. zzz and the same was disconnected/removed on 16-10-2008 for non payent of electricity dues amounting to Rs…...
(ii) That the premises were inspected on 17-10-2008 and electricity supply to the aforesaid disconnected K No has been extended stealthily from our electricity connection bearing K No. …. and the same amounts to permitting an illegal extension of electricity supply.
(iii) That outstanding dues of disconnected KNO….. shall be transferred to our existing K No. …... Copy of notice is annexed as Annexure-A.
3. That Plaintiff in the month of March received another notice from defendants dated 5-3-2010 vide no. …… as Final notice stating that in case of failure of payment of outstanding dues of K No…… will be transferred to K No. …… of Plaintiff installed at address ….. Delhi, copy of notice is annexed as Annexure B.
4. That plaintiff replied to the said notice on 26-3-2010 stating all the relevant facts and informing the defendants that the notice sent by them was false wrong illegal and concocted allegations as facts, with a view to illegally fasten liability of one Sh. Zzz to the Plaintiff, thus to make illegal loss to the Plaintiff and to make illegal gain to the Defendants, copy of reply is annexed as Annexure C.
5. That plaintiff has got separate electricity meter connection installed on his name and has no concern with alleged meter connection of Sh. Zzz, baring K No. ….. In fact connection of Mr. zzz was installed at another address and not at the address of the plaintiff. Bills of the defendant verifying the separate address and the same are annexed herewith as Annexures D & E.
6. That in reply sent by the plaintiff it was clarified that plaintiff had purchased the said property from earlier owner and got existing electricity connection and new connections installed and at no point of time the Plaintiff was ever associated with Sh. Zzz in any manner . It was also clarified that said connection against K No. …. was in the name of Mr. zzz and where as the Plaintiff is residing at another address & that both addresses are different and the defendant by their concocted and wrong notices were trying to fasten liability of one Mr. zzz to the Plaintiff which is wrong , illegal, and same is not permissible in law, It is submitted that the Plaintiff has been paying his electricity bills regularly and punctually and there is no outstanding in his name with regard to K No. …., Bills paid by the Plaintiff are annexed herewith as Annexure F (colly).
7. That the defendants have arbitrarily and without going through the facts submitted by plaintiff through their notice, are threatening the Plaintiff to disconnect his electricity connection which is illegal not justified and arbitrary.
8. That aforesaid action of the defendant is arbitrary and malafide and the same will cause great inconvenience and hardship to the plaintiff and his family members as summer season is at its peak and it is very difficult to live without electricity. Plaintiff is under threat of disconnection of the electricity, hence this suit.
9. That there is no other equally efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff except to file the present suit.
10. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the defendants issued the aforesaid alleged legal notice dated 18-12-2008 demanding the arrears of one Mr. zzz from Plaintiff; Cause of action further arose when subsequent notice dated 5-3-2010 for disconnection was issued; the cause of action further arose when plaintiff sent reply dated 26.3.2010 to the alleged legal notice dated 5.3.2010. The cause of action is still continuing.
11. That the parties to the suit work for gain and reside at Delhi. The cause of action arose at Delhi and the electricity supply connection is installed in the premises situated at PaharGanj Delhi, hence this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
12. That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs. 330/- upon which the fixed requisite court fees is paid on the plaint.
P R A Y E R:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
(a) Pass a decree of declaration, whereby declaring that demand raised by the defendant from the Plaintiff with regard to K No. …. of one Mr. zzz is illegal, unlawful, arbitrarily, malafide and devoid of legal right and without due process of law;
(b) Pass a decree of Permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendants, their agents, servants and employees etc. Restraining them from disconnecting the electricity connection at No. ….. Delhi and restraining the defendants to transfer the amount of K No. …… of Sh. Zzz in to the account of K No. …. of the Plaintiff;
(c) Cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff
(d) Any other or further relief, which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper, be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the interest of justice.
Delhi
Dated:
PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
COUNSEL
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this 08.4.2010 that the contents of paras No. 1 to 8 of the above plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and those of paras 9 to 12 of the plaint are true as per legal information received and believed to be correct. Rest is prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
PLAINTIFF
============= ===================
THE KNOWLEDGE I GAINED, BETWEEN JULY 2010 TO JULY 2012 WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THIS BOOK ARE PASTED HEREAFTER:-
TO ADD IN THE CHAPTER ABOUT CONVEYANCE
Conveyance Deeds in the Indian Cinemas. According to one lady actor (Actress), the conditions obtained in writing (in the written agreement which is signed), contains contract to have sex with the Producer/ Financiers (in other words “Casting Couch”), showing complete nudity or at least partial nudity. Such contracts are illegal and cannot be enforced by Rule of Law, on the other hand the Plaintiff/ Complainant will be facing prosecution for trafficking of woman, prostitution etc. Thus, in this book, no need to give Specimens of such illegal contracts, but such written documents Execution and Implimentation can be read from the book, translation of the same is given below. Normally the Author might not have included this portion in this book, due to fear of instant denial. However the Publisher of the undermentioned/ quoted book is well reputed to publish only Authenticated matters:
Translation from Malayalam Book: pgs 63-64 of the book: “Dupe, autobiography of Surayya Banu, who had dreamt to become a Heroin in the Cinemas, but became only an Extra-Actress, who played the parts of “person/body” of the Actresses, in the Semi-Porn/ Adult only movies”. Narrated by Mr. Arun Ezhutchhan. First edition April 2010. By M/s DC Books, Kottayam, Kerala, India: 686001, e-mail: info@dcbooks.com.
Chapter name: How many other Ms. Selvis, at page 63.
Para 2 to 5.
Note: the translated page could not be included here, which proves about written agreement to do illegal sexual intercourse and to act nude in the Malayalam Cinema Industry, because, the author could not get permission from the publisher of book cited here
====== ============
ANOTHER POINT TO ADD IN THE CHAPTER ABOUT CONVEYANCE:
IT is to caution the Advocates and other professionals, who are likely to prepare partition deeds and effect partition. Ordinary procedure followed is, to just do as the Client says, without discussing how the partition had been affected. Such partition deeds, eventhough may settle the Rights between relatives, unless consented by all the parties, may result in Murders. Please read the following case for a complete example:
Duty of Partitioning Professionals to prevent murders 2003 MP
2003(1) MPLJ 71
Ramesh s/o Baboolal Lodhi vs. State of M.P.
Cri. Appeal No. 547 of 1991 Decided on 14-5-2002. (Jabalpur).
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 304-II – Murder – Of Aunty by nephew – On property dispute – Also injuries to Uncle and cousin brother – After partition of family properties – On the reason of irrigation well of the fileds – No crowd accumulated, thus no independent witnesses are available – Eye witness and injured witnesses had exaggerated the evidence, but truth is separatable, which can be relied – Death had taken place, because the applied the blow with more force, about which he is expected have knowledge – Conviction altered to Section 304-II.
Family law – Legal Professionals opportunity for hard work – Duty at the time of resolution of present dispute – Duty to waste time without expecting any Fees from affected parties – Finding out the next dispute which will arise, after present dispute is resolved – Taking steps to prevent that dispute, only then effecting the Compromise/ arbitration of present dispute – Otherwise the “Arbitrators” will be bound to answer for the quarrels, blood-shed and murders they cause – Many of the oral promises made about “Line of Actual Controls” between partition areas are not complied – Read this case to note this point – Advocacy Law – Arbitration Law – Arbitrators/ Family Panchayat/ Advocates – (this Notes made by Editor, Legal Eagle).
Held:- Succinctly narrated the prosecution case is that prior to the date of incident family partition took place amongst complainant Govind (P. W. 3) and his brothers Ramcharan, Babu and Amrit. Accused Ramesh is the son of Babu and nephew of complainant Govind. Fields of complainant Govind and accused Ramesh are adjacent to each other with a fencing (Bagad) in between. The house of Govind is also located in the field itself. Adjacent to this house there is a well. There was some dispute regarding use of water from the well for the purpose of irrigation. The mother of accused Ramesh filed a claim before the Collector, Sehore in this regard. (Para 3).
On the fateful day, the complainant Govind (P.W. 3) had been to the weekly market of Sehore. In his absence accused Ramesh caused some damage to fencing. When complainant Govind returned from the weekly market, in the evening, his wife Kalabai informed him that the damage had been caused by accused Ramesh. At that time accused Ramesh along with his brother Ganesh was present in his field. Accused Ramesh told Govind to hereafter raise the fencing at a distance of 4 feet. Kalabai claimed that the land is theirs and they will raise the fencing at that very place. Following this altercation, appellant Ramesh along with his brother Ganesh came near the house of the complainant and struck a Farsi blow on the head of Kalabai. When Kailash (P.W. 5) son of complainant Govind tried to intervene, accused Ganesh assaulted him too. Govind also tried to save his wife and son. He was also manhandled. (Para 4).
For appellant: Siddharth Datt
For State: S.K. Panel Lawyer
JUDGMENT
S. L. Jain, J. : — The appellant accused being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 99/87, has filed this appeal challenging the correctness, propriety and validity of the judgment and the findings.
2. The charge against the appellant-accused is that he committed murder of Kalabai wife of Govind and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case is that prior to the date of incident family partition took place amongst complainant Govind (P. W. 3) and his brothers Ramcharan, Babu and Amrit. Accused Ramesh is the son of Babu and nephew of complainant Govind. Fields of complainant Govind and accused Ramesh are adjacent to each other with a fencing (Bagad) in between. The house of Govind is also located in the field itself. Adjacent to this house there is a well. There was some dispute regarding use of water from the well for the purpose of irrigation. The mother of accused Ramesh filed a claim before the Collector, Sehore in this regard.
4. On the fateful day, the complainant Govind (P.W. 3) had been to the weekly market of Sehore. In his absence accused Ramesh caused some damage to fencing. When complainant Govind returned from the weekly market, in the evening, his wife Kalabai informed him that the damage had been caused by accused Ramesh. At that time accused Ramesh along with his brother Ganesh was present in his field. Accused Ramesh told Govind to hereafter raise the fencing at a distance of 4 feet. Kalabai claimed that the land is theirs and they will raise the fencing at that very place. Following this altercation, appellant Ramesh along with his brother Ganesh came near the house of the complainant and struck a Farsi blow on the head of Kalabai. When Kailash (P.W. 5) son of complainant Govind tried to intervene, accused Ganesh assaulted him too. Govind also tried to save his wife and son. He was also manhandled. Shakunbai (P.W. 8) also reached the place of the occurrence.
5. Injured Kalabai and Kailash were taken to the P. S. Sehore which is at a distance of about six kilometer from the spot, on a bullock-cart. As Smt. Kalabai was unconscious at that time, the complainant Govind lodged report at P. S. Sehore where an offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Injured Kalabai, Govind and Kailash were sent to Sehore hospital for their medical examination and treatment.
6. Kalabai was examined by Dr. B. K. Choudhary (P.W. 4). He found an incised wound over the left parietal region of skull 5" x 1/2" x scalp deep. Dr. Choudhary opined that the injury could be caused by sharp and hard object. Ex. P-8 is the report of Dr. Choudhary, Smt. Kalabai was referred to Medical College Hospital, Bhopal, for treatment. On 5-8-1989 Kalabai succumbed to her injuries. A memo of corpse was prepared and the same was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. B. P. Dubey, Lecturer in Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Bhopal. Dr. B. P. Dubey opined that death of Kalabai was caused due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complications. He found an incised wound on parietal region of skull. He also found the fracture of temporal bone and also certain injuries caused due to surgical intervention Ex. P. 12 is report of Dr. B. P. Dubey.
7. Dr. B. K. Choudhary also examined Kailash. (P. W. 5) and found an incised wound on the lower end of left arm, about 2" above the wrist joint over distal end of radius region. This injury was semi-circular in shape. Its size was 4" x 2" x bone deep. Arteries and blood vessels were cut. Dr. Choudhary opined that this injury could be caused by a sharp and hard object. Ex. P-4 is report of Dr. Choudhary in respect of Kailash (P.W. 5).
8. Dr. B. K. Choudhary (P.W. 4) also examined Govind (P.W. 3) and found a contusion over the back of the neck 2" x 2" in diameter, hi the opinion of Dr. Choudhary this injury was caused by hard and blunt object. Ex.P. - 10 is the report of Dr. Choudhary in respect of Govind (P.W. 3).
9. On 4-8-1986 blood stained soil and plain soil was seized from the place of occurrence. Accused was arrested on 5-8-1986. On information received from the accused vide Ex. P. - 2 a Farsi was seized as per Ex. P. - 3.
10. On completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Ganesh but as the co-accused Ganesh was a juvenile, the police was directed to file charge sheet against him before the Juvenile Court.
11. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge held that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the appellant and convicted him for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
12. We have heard Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. K. Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State.
13. Shri Datt, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Trial Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty of commission of murder. He submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellant are bad, illegal, improper and incorrect. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant as above.