The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to relief, such as a mandatory injunction, depends on the nature of the defendant's occupation and requires evidence and trial to determine the rights of the parties.

( 1 ) IN a suit alleging the defendant No. 1 - the son to be the licensee of the ground floor portion of immovable property bearing No. 63, Uday Park (formerly known as Masjid Moth extension), New Delhi, the mother - plaintiff for a decree of possession of the suit immovable property and also decree of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their assignees or servants from coming to the portion of the suit premises and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from coming to the suit property shown in blue in the site plan or in other portion of the said property, the plaintiff by this IA under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure seeks to restrain the defendants from entering the portion of the suit property delineated in blue or to any other portion of the suit property except the portion mentioned in red in the site plan annexed with the plaint and also seeks to restrain the defendants the defendants from disturbing, intimidating, harassing or creating obstruction in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff In other words, the plaintiff by this application prays for a temporary injunction requiring the defendant to leave the suit property and hand over the physical possession of the suit property.

( 2 ) THE say of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the exclusive. owner of the property bearing no. 63, Uday Park, New Delhi (formerly known as Masjid Moth Extension); that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the Government of India on payment of consideration out of her own funds; that the said property was allotted to the plaintiff by government of India on the demise of her youngest son Lt. Devinder Kumar Sharma (Indian navy) who was a bachelor during the 1971 Indo-Pak war when the INS Khukri was sunk; that the conversion charges for getting the suit property converted from leasehold to freehold have been paid by the plaintiff; that defendant No. 1 is the eldest son of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is the wife and defendants 3 and 4 are the sons respectively of defendant no. 1; that the defendants are occupying the suit property as trespassers and have no legal right in the said property; that during the period 1973-75, the plaintiff got the ground floor of the suit property constructed with her own funds with contribution from her husband Jai Dev sharma; that the plaintiff and her husband have been residing in the suit property since 1976; that her other son Sq. Ldr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma has also been living with his family in the suit property; that in 1988, defendant No. 1 retired and shifted to his house in Chandigarh; that in May/june 1990, the plaintiff allowed the, defendants to stay on the ground floor of the suit property as a temporary measure as defendant No. 1 waited to have a temporary shelter due totunrest in Punjab; that the stay of the defendants in the suit property was as a licensee and only on compassionate ground; that no use and occupation charges have been demanded or paid by defendants to the plaintiff as the defendant No. 1 as a son was allowed to use the premises as a licensee; that defendant No. 1 soon after shifting from Chandigarh started threatening the plaintiff and harassing her to transfer the property in his name; that defendants forcibly tried to occupy to the exclusion of the plaintiff two of the three bed-rooms and also cause harassment; that defendant No. 1 wants to fulfil his evil design of illegally taking over the suit property to oust the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE say of the defendants No. 1 to 4 is that the defendant No. 1 is the son of the plaintiff and is a co-owner of property No. 63, Uday Park, New Delhi; that the present suit has been filed at the instance of defendant, No. 1 s brother namely Sh. Nirmal Kumar Sharma; that said sh. Nirmal Kumar Sharma has the intention to grab the said property; that the plaintiff has concealed material facts inasmuch as the notice dated 4. 6. 1