1. Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the Appellants; Mr. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No.1; and Mr. Chaube, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

2. This Appeal takes an exception to the order dated 14th August 2017 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon, Mumbai, thereby dismissing Notice of Motion No.1614 of 2017 filed in S.C. Suit No.3160 of 2015.

3. The said Notice of Motion was taken out by the Appellants herein, seeking the relief of compliance of the order dated 19th July 2016 passed by the said Court.

4. Facts of the present Appeal are to the effect that, Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of Respondent No.1 and in-laws of Respondent No.2. They are in possession of Flat No.11, Brijbala Building, 21st Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. It is their case that, the said flat was purchased by Appellant No.1 jointly, in the ratio of 50% : 50%, with his brother Suresh Kevalramani, by virtue of an 'Agreement of Sale' dated 20th August 1981. In the month of June, 1990, Appellant No.1, with his hard-earned money from the business, purchased the remaining 50% share of his brother in the suit flat in the name of his wife, i.e. Appellant No.2 herein, and Respondent No.1 by an 'Agreement' dated 8th June 1990. The entire consideration for the said flat was, thus, paid and arranged by Appellant No.1 alone. Respondent No.1, who, at the relevant time, in the year 1990, was a minor boy of only 17 years age and studying in the College, had no source of income; therefore, there was no question of Respondent No.1 contributing any amount for purchase of the suit flat. It is the contention of Appellant No.1 that, half share of his brother was purchased by him in the name of Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.1, only with an understanding that Respondent No.1 will hold his share in the said property in a fiduciary capacity until he would pay his share of contribution in the future, which the Appellants believed would serve as their retirement funds in the old age. Respondent No.1, however failed to do so. It was only after lots of follow-up, Respondent No.1 has, after he has acquired his own flat in April, 2014 and after a lengthy litigation, decided to return his share in the flat in favour of Appellant No.2 and, accordingly, he had executed a 'Gift Deed', dated 23rd March 2015 in favour of the Appellants of his share in the suit flat.

5. It is further contention of the Appellants that, after the marriage of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2 in the year 1995, Respondent No.2 also started residing in the suit flat, along with Respondent No.1. Their daughter Anita, who was marred in the year 1999, also, on account of marital discord with her husband over her medical issues, has been staying with the Appellants since 2005. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had two daughters by name Prisha, aged 19 years, and Dia, aged 13 years. Prisha has shifted to 'Dublin' in Ireland in 2016, where she is pursuing her studies.

6. It is the grievance of the Appellants that, Respondent No.2 is a very abusive and aggressive lady and she was ill-treating and harassing the Appellants. Respondent No.1 has always been ignoring the tantrums, aggressions and high-handedness of Respondent No.2 and even supporting her misbehaviour all the time, which multiplied the Appellants' problems many folds. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are occupying two bed-rooms in the said flat and not allowing the Appellants to live in the said house at the fag-end of their lives and frail health, peacefully and comfortably. The harassment of Respondent No.2 to the Appellants increased to such an extent that, Police complaints were filed. Respondent No.2 even attempted to kill the Appellants by trying to create a blast and fire in the A.C. Compressor in a room adjacent to Appellant No.2's bed-room, which is separated by only a wooden cupboard panel. Respondent No.2 has kept on filing various criminal complaints against the Appellants. In those, they were arrested an