Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The present appeal is one more endeavour by the appellant to cause continued harassment to the wife and children of his deceased brother.

2. The dispute pertains to property bearing No.T-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, plot measuring 322 sq.yds. which was owned by late Shri Padam Singh. The claimants are two sons, the appellant and respondent No.1, and the wife and children of third predeceased brother of the appellant and respondent No.1, being respondent Nos.2(i) to (iv). It is the say of the appellant that the property was purchased by late Shri Padam Singh after having sold the ancestral property located at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The appellant claims that their mother late Shrimati Chandrakala Devi during the lifetime of their father filed a suit for declaration, being Suit No.163/1980, qua the suit property which was disposed of by the consent of the parties vide a judgment and decree dated 22.10.1980. The appellant, however, claims ignorance of the proceedings of that suit as records are stated to have been weeded out but from the execution proceedings it is alleged that the consent of the parties is available on record. It is his claim that in terms of order dated 24.1.1983, the parties came into possession of their exclusive portion. The appellant claims that in terms of this division he came into occupation of the back portion of both the ground floor and the first floor while his deceased brother was given the front portion of the first floor and respondent No.1 the front portion of the ground floor while his mother became entitled to the second floor barsati portion. Interestingly the owner of the property, being their father, was not a party to these proceedings qua the said alleged division. Disputes are stated to have, however, arisen after the demise of their parents as the wife of the deceased brother claimed exclusive right of the barsati floor which was in occupation of their mother on the basis of a Will. At the behest of the wife of the deceased brother, a wall is stated to have been

3. The appellant claims to have filed a suit for partition of the barsati floor in the year 2007 before the learned Civil Judge but since the respondents disputed the family arrangement alleged to be in existence as per their written statement of the compromise by which the parties were stated to have been put in their separate portion vide order dated 24.1.1983, the appellant withdrew the suit and filed a suit for partition on the Original Side of this Court, being CS (OS) No.1441/2008. The appellant claims 1/3rd share in the suit property and the cause of action paragraph clearly states that in view of the written statement of the respondents in Suit No.504/2007, the earlier arrangement being pleaded as null and void and without jurisdiction, a fresh partition of the entire suit property was liable to be made.

4. The appellant along with the suit for partition filed an application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') and sought an order to maintain status quo of the suit property.

5. The suit was contested by the respondents who filed their written statement and also moved an application for vacation of interim order. Respondent No.2(i) who was the widow of the deceased brother of the appellant stated that she was in possession of the front portion of the first floor and the whole of second floor and wanted to let out a portion of the first floor since she needed the rental income to meet her day to day expenditure. This prayer as per the impugned order was opposed by the appellant primarily on

6. The impugned order records that there is no dispute about the possession of the second floor being with respondent No.2(i). On a perusal of the plan the learned single Judge found that letting out of either the second floor or the front portion of the first floor was not going to make any change in the