The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of estoppel by pleading and acquiescence in determining the maintainability of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Applying the principles of estoppel by pleading and acquiescence, suit filed by the appellants has been held to be barred and accordingly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order impugned is dated August 20, 2008. The appellants are the successor in interest of Late Ms.Satyawati Sharma.

2. During her life time Satyawati Sharma filed a suit praying as under:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully and in the interest of justice prayed that:-

(i) A decree of possession/eviction order directing the defendant No.1 to 3 to hand over the vacant possession of the entire ground floor & part of Ist floor as well as the big on the first floor and open spaces of 70-Golf Links, New Delhi as shown in the plant annexed be passed.

(ii) A decree of recovery of amount of Rs.10,17,320/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 1-9-96 till the date of recovery be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(iii) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to 3 to deposit the mis-use charges as claimed by the defendant No.4 from the date of non-payment of mis-user charges till the date of deposit in the name of the plaintiff be also passed.

(iv) The cost of the suit be also ordered to be paid to the plaintiff.”

3. Inter-alia, in paragraphs 17 and 19 of the plaint, Late Satyawati Sharma pleaded as under:-

“17. That the plaintiff was so perturbed that it agreed to dispose of the property in favour of defendant No.6 to 11 and had to execute the sale deed in their favour. Since the matter of payment of mis-use charges and the re-entry was still pending therefore, the letter of attornment to the defendant No.1 to 3 was not issued.

xxxxx

19. That the plaintiff on the one hand has been suffering due to continuous mis-user at the hands of defendant No.1 to 3 on the other hand the defendant No.4 & 5 were stressing for the deposit of mis-user inspite of specific request that mis-user by the defendant No.1 to 3 have not stopped. When the plaintiff agreed to sell the property to defendant No.6 to 11 the defendant No.1 to 3 filed a suit for injunction in the court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Civil Judge and obtained an interim injunction for the stoppage of raising of the wall to separate the property occupied by defendant No.1 to 3 and the defendant No.6 to 11 on the first floor. It is submitted that the total property under the occupation of the defendant No.1 to 3 consists of the entire ground floor with constructed area of 1750 sq.ft. and one big room etc on the first floor comprised in an area of 669 sq. ft. Defendants No.6 to 11 are proforma defendants only and no relief is being claimed against them.”

4. To understand the prayer and the relevance of the afore-noted pleadings made in para 17 and 19 by Late Satyawati Sharma, a word needs to be spoken by us to explain the plaint. She sought decree of possession against Indian Overseas Bank, impleaded as defendant No.1 in the suit, and for no reason impleaded the Managing Director and the Manager of the branch of the bank carrying on business from 70 Golf Links, New Delhi as defendants Nos.2 & 3. For reasons unknown, the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, was impleaded as defendant No.4 and the Land and Development Officer as defendant No.5. Six Private Ltd. Companies were impleaded as defendants Nos. 6 to 11. She pleaded of being the perpetual lessee of the land bearing Municipal No.70, Golf Links, New Delhi on which a building was constructed. She pleaded that on November 05, 1970, she let out the ground floor of the property to defendant No.1 to run a bank upon an assurance that being a Government bank, she would have no problem with the lessor, since a property which had to be used for a residential purpose was being let out to be used for banking purposes. She pleaded that the lease was extended from time to time and as per last extension, the lease expired on December 3