I.A. Nos.2449/2009 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2), 8285/2009 (Under Order I Rule 10), 10885/2009 (Under Order XII Rule 6) & 4372/2010 (Under Order IX Rule 7) in CS (OS) 353/2009

S.Ravindra Bhat, J. This will dispose of the first defendant’s applications under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and under Order IX Rule 7 in the suit, which seeks permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, i.e. No. 204, Kailash Hills, East of Kailash, New Delhi, measuring 255.12 sq. yards and from creating interest in favour of any third party in respect of the suit property. I.A. No. 8285/2009 of the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 seeking impleadment in the array of parties is also being decided.

2. A brief background of the suit is required for adjudication of this application. The suit avers that at the time of institution the first plaintiff was aged about 19 years and the second plaintiff (first plaintiff’s younger brother) was aged about 8 years. Being a minor, the second plaintiff sues through his elder sister (first plaintiff and next friend). The plaintiffs’ mother, i.e. Niti (second defendant and only daughter of the S.S. Marwah) is stated to be in police custody in connection with the alleged murder of her father (the plaintiffs’ maternal grandfather, hereafter referred to as "Sh. Marwah"), in FIR No. 20/2009. The plaintiffs submit that the suit property was owned by Sh. Marwah, which consists of a duplex apartment, a basement and ground floor, first and second floor, whereas the third floor is incomplete.

3. The suit property, say the plaintiffs, was allotted to Shri Marwah, by the DDA under a registered Sub-Lease deed, dated 06.09.1984, which was later converted into freehold by Conveyance deed dated 04.05.2000, duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi.

4. It is alleged that due to poor financial condition of her husband, Niti continued to live with her father even after her marriage, in the suit property. The plaintiffs’ father, Sunil Sharma, disappeared in the month of May, 2004 and his whereabouts are not known till date. It is stated that in the month of May, 2006 Sh. Marwah too went missing, when their mother informed them that he had gone to Chandni Chowk, but he never returned. The plaintiffs were informed by their mother that she had assigned the job of reconstruction of the suit property to the first defendant, a builder. On 07.02.2009, the plaintiffs’ mother was taken in custody along-with one Gulfam and another person for the alleged murder of Sh. Marwah (her father). It is stated that the motive behind the alleged murder was to grab the suit property, for which purpose they had fabricated and forged certain documents.

5. The suit alleges that on 17.02.2009, some people visited the suit property claiming to be its owners alleging they were sent by the first defendant. They attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs, when the timely intervention by the neighbours prevented it. The plaintiffs claim that they receive no support, whatsoever, from their family or friends, as they have moved away due to the criminal case against their mother. The plaintiffs are left to fend for themselves. They say that on advice of the neighbours, who helped them collect money for the court fee, they have filed the present suit. The plaintiffs, in addition, rely on news reports, and the copy of a first information report, to say that the first defendant is allegedly implicated in several criminal cases, where allegations of property grabbing are leveled against him. It is also alleged that he has been arrested, in connection with the suit property also, and further that he is booked under provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

6. The plaintiffs rely upon Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which read as under:

"Section 25 -- Murderer disqualified -- A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from