The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of special circumstances for the grant of a mandatory injunction, the consideration of irreparable prejudice, and the evaluation of prima facie evidence in property disputes.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The court proposes, by this order, to dispose of I.A. No. 510/2009, whereby the plaintiff seeks interim mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property, as well as a mandatory injunction to them to hand over physical possession of the entire ground floor portion of the suit property to him (i.e. the plaintiff).

.2. The facts, which emerge as undisputed, from the pleadings are that the plaintiff, a senior citizen, retired as an Accountant General; he had served with the Indian Audit and Accounts service. At the time of institution of the suit, he was 88 years; his wife is aged 76 years. The plaintiff purchased a 500 square yards plot, being C-31, Green Park, in 1958. He retired from service in 1978. There exists a three storeyed building (ground, first and second floor) on the plot; the plaintiffs daughter lives on the second floor; his second son, Willy Singh, lives on the first floor. The plaintiff and his wife live in a portion of the ground floor, comprising dining, drawing room and a bedroom area; the First defendant, his son, and the second defendant, his wife (and the plaintiffs daughter in law) as well as their son, the third defendant (and the plaintiffs grandson) are in possession of two bedrooms, with attached bathroom. Apparently only the third defendant (grandson) was living in the said portion.

3. The plaintiff claims that his son (the first defendant, a doctor), who used to live in the Middle East, and practice there, found difficulty in raising his son, the third defendant; the plaintiff alleges having offered to care for the child, when he was young, and ensure that his schooling went smoothly, and to that end, keeping him in the house. It is submitted that the first two defendants returned to India in 2002, and requested him to give a part of the ground floor to accommodate them. The plaintiff says that he was reluctant to agree to this request, as he and his wife needed the space since both were suffering from ailments, but despite that, he agreed to give two bedrooms, with attached bathrooms to the defendants, at his wifes request. The suit averments are that the defendants were asked not to create problems in relation to common areas. On these conditions, says the plaintiff, the defendants were permitted to occupy two bedrooms on the ground floor. It is alleged that the defendants started intentionally creating disturbances, which they persist in doing. It is contended that this disturbs the plaintiff immensely, as he suffers from angina, and pectoris of the heart, and enlarge prostrate. His wife is said to be suffering from Parkinsons disease. The plaintiff says that it is now difficult to carry out their normal daily routine, peacefully, due to the disruptive activities of the defendants, the irregular hours they keep, the entry of strangers, brought by the third defendant, at odd hours, and the manner in which the common kitchen is used by the defendants, with a view to deny timely food to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have acquired other properties, and despite this are not moving out from the premises, despite repeated requests; it is also averred that the third defendant is of late not even living in the premises. Yet, the defendants continue to keep possession of a portion of the ground floor premises, with a view to claim it, on a later date. The plaintiff and his wife are at the fag end of their life; he (the plaintiff) alleges that they are entitled to peace and also take care of their health, at this late stage. The plaintiff is forced to see deterioration in his wifes health, on the one hand, and also facing humiliation in the hands of the defendants. It is submitted that the plot was purchased by the plaintiff, from his funds, and every floor was constructed by him, with his funds. The defendants were not even born when the property was purchased, and they cannot cla