The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of admission by the party, the nature of the admission, and the sufficiency of the admission under Order XXXIX Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, as well as the interpretation of Section 53a of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

( 1 ) THIS application is filed under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short Civil Procedure Code ). Prayer made in this application is that defendants, who according to the plaintiff are in unauthorised occupation of the suit property, may be directed to deposit in this court an amount of rs. 43,000. 00 p. m. from the date of filing of the suit till their continued use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property.

( 2 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiff is for possession, permanent injunction, recovery of original documents, damages, mesne profits with interest and costs. The parties are related to each other. In fact the defendant No. 1 is real brother of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is wife of defendant No. l and defendants 3 and 4 are the children of defendant No. l. The plaintiff claims that he is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the first and second floors of the property bearing Municipal No. E-182. Greater kailash-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ) which comprised of five bedrooms with attached bathrooms drawing-cum--dining hall, lounges on both floors two kitchens and two servant quarters situated on the terrace floor. He had purchased the suit property from the previous owner that is his mother Late (Smt.)Sushila Ramchandani and three sale deeds dated 4/3/1994 8/3/1994 18/3/1994 were duly executed and registered with the sub-Registrar. He got the suit property mutated in his name and even carried out the construction/renovations in the suit property by adding one room, kitchen, drawing room and toilets on the second floor. Mother of the plaintiff died on 17/10/1995 while residing with the plaintiff in the suit property. It is further mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint that while residing in this suit property, he acquired another property bearing No,m-24, Chittaranjan Park new Delhi which is an independent house. After its acquisition, the plaintiff decided to shift to the said property at. Chittaranjan Park. At this stage, the defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to allow him and his family to occupy the suit property and out of love and affection and regard for his elder brother, the plaintiff allowed the defendant No. 3. and his family members to occupy the suit property purely as licensee and for no other consideration whatsoever. The possession of the suit property was given to the defendants sometime in february/march,1996 and the plaintiff shifted to his newly acquired property in chittaranjan Park sometime in the first week of April, 1996. However, while residing in the suit property defendants became greedy and developed illegal designs of grabbing the suit property. Accordingly the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the premises and even served legal notice dated 7/2/1997 to this effect. The defendants did not do so although on termination of licence by notice dated 7/2/1997 they became unauthorised occupants and trespassers in the suit property. It is further alleged in the plaint that after the receipt of the quit notice the defendant No. 1 illegally and surreptitiously on or before 15/2/1997 removed the three original sale deeds dated 4/3/1994 8/3/1994 18/3/1994 executed by Smt. Sushila Ramchandani in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit property from the drawers and custody of the plaintiff situated in the premises No. M-368, Main Market, Grater Kailash-I , New delhi while the plaintiff was away to Jaipur. In the said shop partnership business was being run under the name and style of M/s Ramchandani Enterprises of which plaintiff, his mother and defendant No. 1 were partners. After the death of plaintiff s mother the business in the same name continued to be transacted by the plaintiff and defendant No. l although without entering into fresh partnership agreement. The defendant No. 1 was therefore having access to the shop premises where the sale deeds pertaining to the suit property were kept an