The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to grant mandatory injunctions at an interim stage and the necessity of amendments to the pleadings for deciding the real matter in dispute.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction on the allegations that the plaintiffs and the defendant are the successors in interest of late Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta; Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta owned a double storied house with a barsati floor and out-house on plot No. C-1, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi; he executed a Will dated 23rd December, 1981 appointing plaintiff No. 1 as the executor of the Will; in terms of the Will, the property was to devolve on Smt. Shanti Mehta, the wife of the deceased, for her life and after her death to her children, i. e. plaintiffs 2 to 6 and defendant in equal shares; plaintiff No. 1 was excluded from the Will as per the wishes of the said plaintiff. On 21st November, 1985 Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta executed a Codicil partially modifying the terms of the Will declaring that the defendant shall have a right to stay with his family on the first floor of the house for a period of 15 years from the date of the Codicil. Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta died on 26th July, 1986 and Smt. Shanti Mehta died on 13th May, 1990.

( 2 ) IT is alleged in the plaint that with a view to maintain cordial relations and to avoid any discord between the brothers and sisters, an oral family settlement was arrived at the instance of plaintiff No. 1 and the same was subsequently recorded in a memorandum. This memorandum of settlement provided that the terms of the Will dated 23rd December, 1981 and Codicil dated 21st November, 1985 executed by Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta would be binding on everybody and that peaceful possession of the defendant in relation to the first floor of the property would not be disturbed. It was further recorded that the rest of the house would be available for the benefit of the plaintiffs 2 to 6 and the defendant who were equal beneficiaries under the Will. It was also recorded in the memorandum of settlement that it will be left to plaintiff No. 1 to decide as to how the house was to be dealt with either by sale, lease or licence and that the keys of the house except the first floor would be kept in the custody of plaintiff No. 1 or with such party as he desires and it was left to the first plaintiff to permit the use of the house to any party he desired. There appears to have arisen certain disputes between the parties about the modalities of working of this settlement which resulted in the plaintiff filing this suit for declaration, prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.

( 3 ) IN the written statement, the defendant has not denied the execution of the Will and the Codicil by Dr. Amolak Ram Mehta, however, it is stated that while the rights of the parties were determined, crystalised and circumscribed by the Will and Codicil of their late father and mother, the defendant was pressurised into affixing his signatures on the so-called memorandum of family settlement, the terms of which were intrinsically contrary to the wishes of the father of the parties. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant had all along suggested that ground floor of the property be let to a tenant and the rental could be shared equally by the parties after meeting expenses for the upkeep and maintenance of the property, however, plaintiffs insisted only upon the sale of the same. The suit, it is alleged, has been filed only with a view to pressurise the defendant into submitting to the sale which is alleged to be contrary to the wishes of the parents of the parties.

( 4 ) ON 4th August, 1995, the Court after recording that "defendant having admitted signatures on memorandum of family settlement which has been marked as Ex. P-3, there is no need to record defendant s statement at this stage under Order 1, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure", framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the defendant was pressurised into affixing his signatures on the memorandum of family settlement, Ext. P-3, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD (2) Relief.

( 5 ) THOUGH, the Court had fix