1. The parties to these proceedings are four brothers viz. Mr. J.N. Uppal, Mr. G.K. Uppal, Mr. P.N. Uppal and Dr. Harish Uppal as well as their sister Ms. Indira Uppal. The disputes are in relation to two properties, namely, 20 Todarmal Road, New Delhi – 110 001 and 9A/50, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005 (hereinafter referred to as the „Todarmal property? and „Karol Bagh property? respectively). I shall record the events, as they happened, chronologically and while recording those facts, background of various litigations which erupted between the parties would also get surfaced.

2. As mentioned above, the parties were owners of the aforesaid two properties. In the year 1988, the parties desired that these properties be partitioned. Document dated 29.3.1989 was written as per which partition of the said properties was effected on 17/18.7.1988.

3. In the year 1994, however, Ms. Indira Uppal filed suit for partition, which was registered as Suit No. 146/1994. She impleaded her four brothers as defendants in the said suit. In this suit, she stated that she was a physically handicapped lady with 80% disability. Father and mother of the parties expired on 1.12.1968 and 6.6.1985 respectively and on their demise the aforesaid properties were inherited by the parties. Mutation was also effected in the names of the parties and in this manner all brothers and sister became owners to the extent of 1/5th share each, in the said properties. She further averred that being handicapped and over-protected as well as pampered by her parents and barely educated, she never bothered or looked into the legalities of inheritance and mutation and worked on faith in her brothers and signed as wanted by them. In or around 1972, an order was passed by the Income-Tax authorities that the above-mentioned two properties were protectively assessed as HUF (Smt. Desh Raj – mother of the parties). This was only a protective order and the plaintiff was not aware of the same. She further pleaded that there could not be a HUF in the name of a lady. In any case, she became aware of this in June 1989 when she was defrauded and misled by the defendant No.1, Mr. J.N. Uppal, in putting her signatures on a document dated 29.3.1989 on the undertaking and assurance that he would get the ground floor of Karol Bagh property vacated for her and only then the said document dated 29.3.1989 shall be got registered as it has no value without registration and without an order under Section 171 of the Income-Tax Act. He also undertook that she could occupy and use the front portion of first floor of Todarmal property. She moved there in the last week of June and was in occupation of that portion. However, one month thereafter, the defendant No.1 and his wife forced her to vacate the premises on the false pretext of getting some whitewashing and thereafter never allowed her to occupy the portion in the Todarmal property and never took interest or made any effort to get ground floor of the Karol Bagh property vacated for her. She further pleaded that, in fact, no agreements, oral or otherwise, came about on 18.7.1988 as falsely stated in the document dated 29.3.1989 and, therefore, no partition of properties had taken place. On this premise, with some other averments also made in the plaint, she prayed for a decree of partition in respect of the aforesaid two properties by metes and bounds. She also filed an interim application seeking restraint against the defendants in the suit from alienating the properties. On 18.1.1994, an injunction order to this effect was issued in the said application.

4. Mr. J.N. Uppal also filed suit No. 528/1994 and preferred an application for status quo in which order was passed on 4.3.1994 directing maintenance of status quo in respect of possession, etc. He also moved another application under Order VII Rule 11 in Suit No. 146/1994 for rejection of the plaint. On 24.2.1994, order was passed for clubbing of b