Advocate Yuganshu Sharma

Questions Answered by Advocate Yuganshu Sharma (700+ answers)

Q: Cultivating tenant fake case dismissal

Some people worked in a mango garden in the past and filed a completely fake case that they are CULTIVATING TENANTS and they cannot be evicted. They falsely claimed that they worked in the mango garden for generations. Do the normal civil courts have JURISDICTION to deal with issues related to cultivating tenants or should they approach District Collector or other officials? Did any of you come across such a fake case related to cultivating tenants? What kind of reply should be given?

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma answered
Dear Sir/Madam, the appropriate forum depends on the State’s agricultural tenancy legislation and the relief sought. A claim of cultivating tenancy over a mango garden does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. However, where a special tenancy law reserves questions of tenancy status or eviction to a designated revenue authority, the civil court’s jurisdiction may be barred to that extent. The mere fact that the claimants previously worked in the garden does not, by itself, establish that they are cultivating tenants; their actual role, possession, cultivation, payment or sharing of produce, and the applicable statutory requirements must be examined.In your reply, specifically deny the alleged tenancy if it is false, state the true nature and duration of the claimants’ work, and distinguish employment or labour from lawful agricultural tenancy. Seek strict proof of the alleged tenancy, including any lease, rent receipts, crop-sharing records, revenue entries and other contemporaneous documents. Preserve relevant land records, employment or wage records, witness evidence and proof of possession. If the case is pending before a civil court, your advocate should examine whether a jurisdictional objection or an application for determination of the relevant tenancy issue is appropriate. A complaint to the District Collector or revenue authorities may also be considered where supported by the applicable State law, but it does not automatically replace the defence in the pending suit.Do not assume that the claim is false merely because the claimants have no written lease; some tenancy laws recognise other forms of tenancy. The State in which the mango garden is situated and the exact relief claimed are essential to determine the correct forum and the strongest legal reply.

Q: Interim stay on unilateral loan closure under Section 38(8)

I financed an auto loan from IndusInd Bank. Vehicle was burned within 5 months. I filed a case in Ahmednagar Consumer Court. Insurer paid Rs 2,00,000, and I paid Rs 13,903. Total loan stands 100% cleared strictly "UNDER PROTEST" on 30-09-2026. Bank suffered zero loss, earning profit.On 22-09-2026, I legally objected to bank's forced foreclosure to destroy my right to vehicle substitution under Clause 1.1. In legal reply, bank states: "Any amendment to asset particulars... engine/chassis/registration particulars... cannot be construed as conferring an unilateral right... without Bank's approval..."The Judge at admission stage specifically asked: "Is there any past judgment or decided precedent regarding vehicle/asset substitution under a loan agreement? If yes, present it."Most victims lack insurance or are defaulters, so no precedent exists. How can I urgently get an Interim Stay under Sec 38(8) to freeze account status and stop unilateral closure? Advice needed.

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma answered
Dear Sir/Madam, you may urgently move an interim application before the Ahmednagar District Consumer Commission under Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking a status quo order to preserve your contractual rights concerning vehicle substitution under Clause 1.1. The Commission has the power to grant an interim order that is just and proper during the pendency of the complaint.Your application should emphasise that the vehicle was destroyed by fire, the insurer paid ₹2,00,000, and you paid the remaining ₹13,903 strictly under protest on 30 September 2026. Rely on the exact wording of Clause 1.1 and the bank’s written reply acknowledging that asset particulars may be amended with its approval. Explain specifically how unilateral closure of the loan account or release of hypothecation could prejudice your pending claim for substitution. Attach the loan agreement, payment proof, insurance settlement, loan statement, correspondence and the bank’s reply.Seek a narrowly framed order restraining the bank from taking steps that would defeat the disputed substitution claim, and request preservation of the relevant account and hypothecation records pending adjudication. Since the bank asserts that its approval is required, you must establish why its refusal is contractually or legally unjustified; the clause may not confer an unconditional right to substitution. The fact that the loan is fully paid under protest is relevant, but does not by itself establish entitlement to substitute the vehicle.An identical precedent is not essential if the relief is supported by the contract and the facts. Nevertheless, the Commission may decline an interim order that effectively grants the final relief before evidence is considered. Ask your advocate to press for urgent hearing and demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable prejudice. The application should preserve your claim without asking the Commission to presume that substitution has already been legally established.

Q: Legal Compliance of Third Floor with Terrace and Lower Ground Floor

If a residential building in South Delhi has a lower ground floor (7–8 feet above ground and 2–3 feet below ground), followed by the ground, first, second and third floors with a terrace, and the total building height is under 15 metres, is it legal to purchase the third floor with terrace? Could I face any MCD legal notice or action due to the lower ground floor or building violations?

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma answered
Dear Sir/Madam, the third floor with terrace of a residential building in South Delhi may be purchased only after verifying that the construction complies with the sanctioned building plan and applicable Delhi building bye-laws. The fact that the total building height is below 15 metres does not, by itself, establish legality or protect you from action by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).The lower ground floor, which is partly above and partly below ground level, is not automatically illegal. Its legality depends on its approved classification, level relative to the surrounding ground, permitted use and compliance with the applicable building regulations. You should obtain and examine the sanctioned building plan, completion/occupancy documents, if applicable, floor-wise approvals, permissible FAR and ground coverage, setbacks, and the legal status of the terrace. Also verify whether the terrace is exclusively conveyed to you or remains a common area subject to other owners’ rights.If any floor, terrace structure or lower-ground-floor construction is unauthorised, the MCD may initiate proceedings, including a show-cause notice, sealing or demolition action, subject to applicable law and procedure. A sale deed or indemnity from the seller does not legalise unauthorised construction or necessarily prevent municipal action.Before paying the final consideration, have an independent architect verify the sanctioned plan against the actual building and obtain a property-title review by a lawyer. If deviations are found, ask the seller to resolve them lawfully before completion of the purchase. Without examining the sanctioned plan and the actual site measurements, no definite opinion can be given that the property is legally compliant.

Q: Written Statement after death of defendant

When a defendant dies, can his legal representatives amend his written statement? Or, should they file fresh written statements? Does the limitation begin from the date of their impleadment into the suit? Do they have to file all the documents? In the case of plaintiffs, they keep amending the same plaint when a plaintiff dies, but why do defendants have to file new written statements when a defendant dies?

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma answered
Dear Sir/Madam, under Order XXII Rule 4(2) CPC, the legal representatives of a deceased defendant may raise a defence appropriate to their capacity as legal representatives. They may be permitted to file an additional or separate written statement, but they cannot ordinarily introduce pleas inconsistent with the deceased defendant’s defence or raise pleas that were personal to the deceased. The Supreme Court has recognised this right in Bal Kishan v. Om Parkash and Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co.There is no universal rule requiring a fresh written statement in every case. The legal representatives should seek permission from the court and file their defence promptly after being impleaded. The applicable timeline depends on the nature of the suit, the stage of proceedings and the court’s directions; commercial suits may be subject to stricter timelines. They must file the documents on which they rely in accordance with the applicable CPC provisions, rather than necessarily filing every document in their possession.If a plaintiff dies, the legal representatives ordinarily continue the proceedings on the basis of the existing pleadings, subject to any necessary consequential amendments. Similarly, the death of a defendant does not, by itself, make a fresh written statement compulsory if an existing written statement adequately covers the defence. The object is to ensure a fair opportunity to defend the suit, not to restart the entire pleading process automatically.

Q: Written statement filing after several years

In a suit for permanent injunction in a property dispute, two defendants filed their Written Statements and other defendants adopted the Written Statement of the first defendant by filing an ADOPTION MEMO through their counsel. The trial did not start. After 12 years, the other defendants want to withdraw or cancel their ADOPTION MEMO and file their own Written Statement now. Is it allowed? Is it necessary to file an IA seeking permission to file the Written Statement now?

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma answered
Dear Sir/Madam,The defendants cannot ordinarily treat an Adoption Memo filed 12 years ago as if it never existed. By adopting the Written Statement of Defendant No. 1, the other defendants had effectively adopted the pleadings contained therein as their defence. However, since the trial has admittedly not commenced, the Court may, in an appropriate case, permit those defendants to file their own Written Statements if they demonstrate a genuine reason why a separate defence is now necessary and the proposed pleading does not cause prejudice or introduce an entirely new and inconsistent case.In my view, after such a long lapse of about 12 years, it would be safer and procedurally appropriate to file an IA seeking permission to withdraw/recall the Adoption Memo and simultaneously seeking leave to place the proposed individual Written Statement on record. The application should explain the circumstances for the earlier adoption, why a separate Written Statement is now necessary, why there has been no deliberate delay, and particularly that the trial has not commenced and no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff or other defendants.The Court is not necessarily bound to permit the defendants to replace their earlier adopted defence merely because the trial has not started. It will examine the conduct of the parties, the stage of proceedings, the reasons for the delay, the contents of the proposed Written Statement and whether permitting it would cause prejudice or enable the defendants to materially alter their defence after 12 years.Therefore, yes, a separate Written Statement may still be possible, but it should not be filed directly without seeking the Court's permission. The prudent course is to file the IA first, annex the proposed Written Statement, and seek a specific order permitting the defendants to withdraw/modify their adoption and take their individual Written Statement on record.