1. The appellant has filed this appeal against decree and judgment dated 25th September, 2006, passed by Sh. M.K. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who vide impugned judgment, dismissed the suit of the appellant.

2. The brief facts of this case are that appellant is the father of respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2. He filed the present suit for permanent injunction on 24th September, 1999, on the allegations that,

he is owner in possession of property No. D-135, Anand Vihar, New Delhi and this property has been acquired by him from his previous owner. Respondent No.2 has been cruel towards him. Sometimes on account of torture committed upon him, he goes and sleeps in the house of his other son, Sh. Bhupinder Mehta at A-144, Anand Vihar, New Delhi, though appellant permanently resides in the property in question and all his goods and belongings are lying there.

3. It has been further alleged that respondent No.1 is not permitting the appellant to enter the house, though the appellant is owner in possession of the property. Respondent No.1 is living in this property illegally and without any authority of law and appellant is thus entitled to damages for use and occupation of the property by respondent No.1.

4. Appellant thus sought a decree for permanent injunction in his favour, and against respondent No.1, restraining him from entering upon, living or otherwise keeping any of his goods in property in question. It was also prayed that respondents be restrained from causing any interference in the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the appellant and his family members and respondents be restrained from causing any hindrance/interference in the egress and ingress of appellant and his other son and his family, from entering upon the said property and from removing or bringing in any goods and belongings of the appellant and his other son.

5. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it was stated that property in question was purchased from the sale of golden jewellery belonging to respondent No.2 and out of her savings. The appellant under the garb of the present suit is claiming the recoveries of the goods which are not permissible under the law. As a matter of fact, the appellant is residing with his elder son, Bhupender at A-144, Anand Vihar, Delhi, while respondent No.2 is residing with respondent No.1 in the property in question. It has been denied by the respondents that appellant is in possession of the suit property. Respondent No.1 is living in the suit property in order to look after his aged and willing mother namely respondent No.2. The appellant has no right over the suit property as the same belongs to respondent No.2.

6. The trial court framed following issues; “1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as mentioned in Preliminary Objection No.1 of the written statement?(OPD)

2. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

3. Whether the suit is barred U/s 41(h) of Specific Relief Act? OPD

4. Whether the property in question was purchased from the sale proceedings of bulk of Golden Ornaments belonging to defendant no.2? If so to what effect? (OPD)

5. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed?

6. Relief.”

7. After framing of issues, appellant led evidence. Thereafter, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC dated 27th October, 2005 for compromise was filed and matter between appellant and respondent No.2 was compromised.

8. Trial court thereafter, held that though the case has reached at the stage of recording of the evidence of respondent but it heard the counsel for the parties at length on the point of maintainability of the suit, considering the prayers made by the appellant in the suit.

9. As regard the first prayer of the appellant, it held that the present suit is only for permanent injunction on which court fee has been paid accordingly. Appellant and the contesting responde