( 1 ) THIS I. A. No. 8385/93 has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for grant of interim relief of damages/mesne profits or in the alternative maintenance, at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 P. M. in a suit for partition and injunction. Plaintiffs are the widow and son of deceased Ravi Suri who died on August 29, 1989.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are his mother and father, whereas defendants 3 and 4 are his brothers. Defendant No. 2 having died during the pendency of the suit, besides the parties on record his daughter Smt. Renu Khanna has been impleaded as his legal representative.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that deceased Ravi Suri was doing his separate business and he owned the following movable and immovable properties as his separate properties:- Immovable properties : 1. Residential house No. HD-32, Vishakha Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi. 2. Factory building No. 10, Dilkhush Bagh, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi. 3. Double Storeyed shop bearing No. D-414, New Fruit Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. Movable properties : 4. Car No. NE-118, bearing registration No. DAC 4151. 5. Telephone connection No. 7210043. 6. Household goods and 7. Bank account and shares of Unit Trust of India.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that after the death of her husband, plaintiff was harassed/ill-treated by the defendants and she had to leave the matrimonial home and in her absence the lock of the almirah of her husband was broken open and all valuable documents were removed by the defendants and all his goods are also with the defendants. On her complaint to the police some of her clothes, articles and ornaments were returned but her signatures were obtained under threat and coercion without returning all her goods. Plaintiffs claim that they alongwith the mother of the deceased (defendant No. 1) have inherited these properties in equal share and claim 2/3rd share in these properties.

( 5 ) THE defendants are contesting the suit on various grounds. Inter alia it is alleged that at the time of his death Ravi Suri did not own any property movable or immovable. He was suffering from various ailments and due to his ill health he was neither able nor was doing any business. He had earlier started his own business but suffered heavy losses in it. The plaintiff had deserted him and due to misbehaviour and ill treatment meted out by her and her parents, he remained in mental tension, unable to do anything and was being looked after by the defendants. At his desire a family settlement was arrived at between the members of the family on 23. 11. 1988 whereby Ravi Suri was given jewellery and cash, besides a monthly stipend of Rs. 1,000. 00 for his life time, in lieu of his share in house No. HD-32, Vishakha Enclave, New Delhi. It is denied that this house belongs to him. It is also alleged that all the movable assets belonging to the plaintiff were given to her in the presence of the police and a receipt was signed by her and her parents.

( 6 ) THE defendants have also disputed and denied the claim of the plaintiff for interim relief by way of mesne profits or maintenance.

( 7 ) IN the replication, the plaintiff has alleged that the alleged memorandum of family settlement is a sham, bogus and fabricated document.

( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that when house No. HD-32 was acquired by Ravi Suri, the defendants were living in their separate house at Model Town, Delhi; this house was acquired by Ravi Suri from his own and separate funds and other two immovable properties also exclusively belong to him. He has also contended that the alleged memorandum of family settlement is a bogus, sham and fabricated document, it is not even admissible in law and it can not affect the rights and interest of the plaintiffs; that as the defendants are denying the right of plaintiffs; and as plaintiffs have been deprived the use of the properties, th