( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 27. 4. 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi deciding a preliminary issue "whether suit for permanent injunction as framed is maintainable", in favour of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate learned counsel for respondent No. 1. as well as Mr. B. S. Mann, advocate learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and have gone through the record.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that respondent No. 1 - plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit for perpetual injunction against petitioner - defendant No. 2 in the trial court (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 2), kashulya Gulati, defendant No. l in the trial court (hereinafter referred to as defendant no. 1), Smt. Chandra Prabha defendant No. 3 in the trial court (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 3) Smt. Kanchan Malhotra defendant No. 4 in the trial court (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 4) and Sh. Sugata roy defendant No. 5 in the trial court (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 5 ).

( 4 ) LATE Ms. Indu Gulati was sister of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4. The defendant No. l is mother of late Ms. Indu gulati and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. defendant No. 5 is son of Defendant No. 2. Late Ms. Indu Gulati was unmarried. She was an officer in Indian Revenue Service and expired on 9. 5. 1994 at her residence C-76 panchsheel Enclave, New Delh. She was the owner of the said house.

( 5 ) SHE was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 and 2 were residing with her at the abovesaid house. After she transferred some of her moveable properties to defendant No. 3 and 4. defendant No. 2 felt offended and shifted to R. K. Puram, New delhi and thereafter only defendant No. 2 looked after Indu Gulati and was running the house. In January, 1994 Indu Gulati as mentioned in the plaint realized that not much time was left for her therefore she wrote a will dated 12. 1. 1994. The will was duly attested by two witnesses. One was her immediate neighbour and the other was an old friend. She bequeathed her house C-76, Panchsheel enclave as under :-

(a) Ground floor to defendant No. 5 with the directions that defendant No. 1 during her lifetime would have a right of residence in the said ground floor and defendant No. 5 will not be allowed to transfer the said ground floor.

(b) The partially built and unbuilt first floor of the said house bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff. Unbuilt second floor was bequeathed to defendant no. 3 and unbuilt third floor to defendant no. 4.

(c) The side entrance having the existing staircase which leads to existing partially constructed first floor was to be used exclusively by the occupants of the upper floors and access to the bore-well in the front courtyard was also available to all the occupants of the - upper floors.

( 6 ) THIS shows that she had bypassed defendant No. 2- the petitioner in this petition but had bequeathed the ground floor to her son defendant No. 5.

( 7 ) IN the suit it is alleged that plaintiff is the owner of the first floor. The plaintiff locked the passage leading to the first floor and the open terrace as also the single room construction and mumty on the first floor because according to her the first floor was bequeathed to her by the deceased. It is alleged that the defendants accepted the Will dated 12. 1. 1994 in various correspondence but now the will is being interpreted by some of the heirs so as to mean that as long as defendant No. 1 is alive, she will use the entire house including the first floor. Some disputes have arisen apparently about interpretation of the Will and ownership of the land under the existing construction. It is alleged that obstructions are being put by defendants no. 1,2 and 5 in the way of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document