Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking amendment in the plaint.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the suit were stated in the order passed on 30th January, 1995 while disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. but again a brief resume of the same deserves to. be made while disposing of this application. Some of the facts as are relevant are taken as such from the order dated 30th January, 1995.

( 3 ) ONE Narayan Dutta was the perpetual lessee of immoveable property bearing No. l3, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and owned the residential house and out houses standig thereupon. Narayan Dutta expired on 7. 11. 1950 leaving behind a son Krishan Dutta and three daughters, namely, Vidyawati, Kaushlaya and Sumitra Sahai and widow Karam Devi. Only Sumitra Sahai, the plaintiff, is alive. The other two daughters expired in the year 1990. Widow Karam Devi expired in 1969 and the son Krishn Dutta expired on 24. 9. 1976.

( 4 ) IT is the plaintiffs case that Narayan Dutta expired intestate and on his death property was jointly inherited by his son Krishan Dutta, widow and three daughters in equal shares and on the death of widow, her estate also devolved equally on the son and the three daughters. According to the plaintiff, her brother Krishan Dutta was entitled to only l/4th share in the entire estate as an heir of Narayan Dutta. His possession on the entire property was not objected to by the plaintiff and the other two sisters, out of respect and reverence to the brother. Krishan Dutta had been looking Kafter the management of entire property on the understanding that he would not do anything which was prejudicial to the interests of his sisters. Krishna Dutta, during his life time had allowed vario servants, guests and tenants to occupy different portions of the property. The sisters had reposed complete trust in Krishna Dutta, who expired in 1976, whereafter his widow Rani Devi continued to reside in the property in a portion in the ground floor where she had been living with her husband and out of respect to her and on belief that she and her husband both held possession of the property in trust for and on behalf of three sisters, her possession was not disturbed which was that of a co-owner. On the death of her husband, Rani Dutta had applied for probate of the will executed by Krishan Dutta on 7. 6. 1976, for which consent of the plaintiff was obtained by Rani Dutta. This consent in this suit, on the basis of which ultimately probate was granted in favour of Rani Dutta is challegned by the plaintiff on the ground that while giving consent the plaintiff was advised that nobody could bequeath by way of a will more than what he owned and thus the act of giving consent to the grant of probate was not likely to affect her entitlement to the share in the property. It is also alleged that Rani Dutta also confirmed to the plaintiff that her husband s intention had always been to will away only his share in the property and not the entire property. Plaintiff claims that on the basis of representation of Rani Dutta and on the advice received by the plaintiff on the interpretation of the will, she signed the written statement in probate proceedings stating that she had no objection for the grant of probate. Rani Dutta continued to remain in occupation of the property and now after her death on 6. 10. 1993, defendant No. l has started claiming to be the exclusive owner of the property, to the exclusion of the plaintiff for which notices were received by her. Defendant No. l was claiming to be the absolute owner of the property on the basis of the will executed by Krishn Dutta on 7. 6. 1976. On these basis a decree is claimed for injunction against defendant No. l not to take possession of the property or any part thereof and also a decree claiming not to transfer, alienate or part with the property. A mandatory injunction is also claimed against defendant No. l2 to rectify its record by s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document