VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) BY this common order, I propose to deal with the aforesaid applications. Parties have addressed common arguments.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the daughter while defendant No. 1 is the son of late lt. Col. Ram Krishna Satija and late Smt. Bimla Satija. Late Lt. Col. Ram krishan Satija was admittedly the owner of the suit property bearing No. B-44, Defence Colony, New Delh. He had acquired the leasehold rights in respect of the suit property vide perpetual lease deed dated 3. 6. 1978. Lt. Col. R. K. Satija expired on 25. 2. 1991. The mother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 thereafter passed away on 15. 2. 1995.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff avers that she has been in occupation of the first floor, barsati and the garage block of the suit property and that she has been residing with her family and parents therein since the year 1971. The ground floor of the property was let out to tenants even during the lifetime of the father. It is claimed that defendant No. 1 never resided on the ground floor of the property, since he was permanently residing in Mumbai and is engaged in his shipping business. After the death of the mother, the ground floor was let out and defendant No. 1 was receiving the rents from the said letting.

( 4 ) IT is averred that late Lt. Col. R. K. Satija executed a registered Will on 8. 2. 1982 (herein referred to as the 'will') and bequeathed the property in dispute to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It is further stated that the plaintiff got the first floor and the barsati floor whereas defendant No. 1 got the entire ground floor of the suit property. It is further stated that on 13. 10. 1993 the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 applied for mutation of the suit property in their joint names on the basis of the registered Will dated 8. 2. 1982 left by their father. The MCD mutated the suit property in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 3. 7. 1995. It is further stated that the parties got the leasehold rights converted to free hold in joint names and for that purpose, defendant No. 1 took away the title documents. The expenses for conversion were also borne by both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. On 7. 3. 2005, the conversion of the property took place and a conveyance deed was executed jointly in the names of plaintiff and defendant No. 1.

( 5 ) IT is further stated that in the month of May, 2005 the ground floor of the property was vacated by the tenant. Plaintiff states that defendant no. 1 desired to induct only a foreigner as a new tenant. Since that did not happen, the ground floor remained vacant. It is claimed that in December, 2005, defendant No. 1 suggested to the plaintiff that the suit property be sold to a builder, or in the alternative suggested that the plaintiff sell her share to defendant No. 1. However the plaintiff was not interested to sell the suit property. It is further claimed that defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 15. 2. 2006 asked the plaintiff to vacate the garage portion. Defendant No. 1 took the keys of the ground floor from the plaintiff and thereafter refused access to the plaintiff to the backyard where the plaintiffs water meter, water tank and the water pump are installed. It is claimed that on 17. 5. 2006, defendant nos. 1 and 2 came to the property and on 18. 5. 2006, a few strangers came and occupied the ground floor of the suit property. The strangers appeared to be anti social elements brought only to threaten the plaintiff and to put pressure upon her to sell her portion. 6. In paragraph 35, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are co-owners of the suit property and that the suit property had not been divided by metes and bounds and hence the defendant No. 1 has no right to sell and/or create any third party interest in the suit property.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff filed this suit claiming a decree of restraint against defendant No. 1 from selling and/or creating any third party interest in the ground floor of the suit property, and at