( 1 ) IN order to understand the controversy let me give the pedigree of the parties :

( 2 ) LALA Bengali Mal had vast properties. He disrupted his joint Hindu family in 1935 and the same year converted his firm Lachman Das Ram Chand into a company and registered it under the Companies Act. Coparceners became shareholders. Bengali Mal died on 24-7-37. The company was thereafter dissolved and the assets were partitioned among the shareholders under an instrument of partition executed on 28-11-1941. In accordance with this deed, life estate was conferred on Vidyawati widow of Bengali Mal in certain properties and it was provided that on her death l/3rd on Gian Wati and her sons and l/3rd on Kamla Rani and her sons. It is significant that sons of Bengali Mal have been deprived of their share in the property of Vidyawati and the same had been settled on their wives and sons. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Mst. Vidyawati became full owner of the property and in virtue of the newly acquired right, she made a will on 18th December, 1959 and got it registered. Accordingly to this will, the property was devised into certain shares in favour of the families of Harish Chand and Tara Chand. But it is alleged that she superseded this will by another one on 28-3-1960 which she deposited with the Registrar. She died on 2-1-1966. The will was depend on 7-2-1966 and was subsequently registered on 16-2-1966. According to this will, she bequeathed her property exclusively to Gianwati and her sons Gianwati was appointed executor of the will.

( 3 ) KAMLA Rani filed a suit against the other claimants in the year 1967 for partition of the family properties in which one of the issues framed was whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the properties in the suit? This court by order dated 31-7-1972 held that all the parties to the suit are all co-owners and possession of one will ensure to the benefit of the others. One of the properties included is B-39 Connaught Place, New Delhi. The defendants M/s. Standard Service station were the tenants thereof.

( 4 ) ON 19-12-73 sons of Tara Chand filed a suit against M/s Standard Service Station for an injunction restraining them from sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession of the aforesaid premises. The plaintiff contended that after the death of Mst. Vidyawati they became the owner landlords of the property and since her death the defendants are paying rents to them. On 19-12-75 the plaintiffs prayed for grant of an ad interim injunction which was granted on 20-12-75 and a local commissioner was also appointed. The ground floor was in possession of the defendants while the first floor was occupied by some Hotel in Paharganj whose chowkidar was present there.

( 5 ) IN their written statement filed on 31-5-1976 the defendants stated that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor landlords. The lease deed in favour of Vidyawati was executed on 18-4-1951 and was registered on 8-2-1952. They were paying rent to Suresh Gupta till the year 1965. lnl966suresh Gupta told the plaintiffs that the rent would be collected by Sarvesh Chander. Suresh Gupta again informed in 1974 that the rent would henceforth be collected by Satish Gupta. Therefore, the defendants started paying rent to Satish Gupta w. e. f. 1-4-1974. They have handed over possession of the first floor to M/s. Satish Gupta on 29-10-75 and the possession of the ground floor was given on 2-12-1975 to the owners of the property. They had even disposed of their machinery and equipment on 2-12-75. Under the lease deed the defendants were given the right to sub-let and therefore, no suit could be filed against them.

( 6 ) THE plaintiffs moved an application on 2-11-76 under order 39 Rule 2 sub-rule (3) against them for action for breach of the said injunction. The respondents filed their reply on 8-12-1976 in which they mentioned that they had given possession in October and December 1975.

( 7 ) ON 22-8-78 S