Manmohan Singh, J.

1. Plaintiff Dayal D.Shahdadpuri has filed the suit, being CS(OS) No.118/2007, inter alia, mainly in respect of his 2500 shares in defendant No.1 company. He has claimed the shares to be bought by him from Nitya Bharaney for consideration of US$6000 pursuant to RBI permission granted in the month of May, 1999. The relief of declaration and injunction is also sought to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the said shares. The plaintiff has further prayed that defendants No.1 to 4 may also be restrained from denying him his ownership rights in respect of the said shares or from alienating the two immovable properties belonging to the defendant No.1 Company.

2. The defendant No.1 is a private limited company. Defendants No.2, 6 and 7 are real brothers and defendant No.5 is their widowed mother. The patriarch of the family passed away in 2004. There is also a married daughter, Mrs.Nitya Bharaney. The plaintiff is the husband of the only sister of the father of defendants No.2, 6 and 7.

3. The defendants No.1 to 4 are the only contesting defendants who have filed the written statements. Primarily, in the written statement, the defence of the defendants No.1 to 4 is essentially predicated on the allegation that the plaintiff was allegedly never a share holder of the defendant No.1. It is further alleged by these defendants in their written statement that in March, 1998 the other brothers and sister i.e. Mr.Janak Datwani, Mr.Kishin Datwani and Mrs.Nitya Bharaney had allegedly transferred their respective shares of the defendant No.1 to the mother Mrs.Jamna Datwani vide the alleged transfer deeds and the mother had allegedly earlier in January, 1998 gifted the shares of these brothers and sisters to Mr.Anand Datwani i.e. defendant No.2 who also in his written statement has further alleged and claimed that the share capital of the defendant No.1 was increased and allotted to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff has not stated as to how he became the owner of 2500 shares of defendant No.1 Company of which the plaintiff is claiming himself to be one of the original allottees. The stand of the defendants No.5 and 6 is that they are supporting the plaintiff in the present suit and have consciously chosen not to file their written statements.

4. Defendant Nos.2, 6 and 7 are real brothers and defendant No.5 is their widowed mother. Mrs.Nitya Bharaney is the sister of defendants No.2, 6 and 7 and daughter of widowed mother Mrs.Jamna Datwani. The dispute in other two suits; one filed by Mrs.Jamna Datwani, being CS(OS) No.556/2008, and second suit filed by Sh.Janak Datwani, being CS(OS) No.113/2007, revolves to the shareholding of the company M/s.CNA Exports Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CNA” or “the Company”), which was acquired and owned by late Sh.Jamna Dass Datwani, husband of Mrs. Jamna Datwani and father of Sh.Anand Datwani, Sh.Kishin Datwani, Sh.Janak Datwani and Mrs.Nitya Bharaney. In the suit filed by Mrs.Jamna Datwani they are arrayed as defendants No.1 to 4 and the remaining defendants i.e. 5 to 11 are other shareholders and associates.

5. The third suit as mentioned was filed by Sh.Janak Datwani on 30th May, 2007, being CS(OS) No.1113/2007, seeking a declaration that he is 13.33% shareholder of C.N.A. and again sought injunction order(s) against the immovable properties of C.N.A. The Court did not pass any injunction order against the properties of C.N.A., except it was observed on 31st May, 2007 that C.N.A. was only entering into a joint venture agreement for development of Gurgaon property. However, an order was passed that any agreement between C.N.A. and any third party would be subject to orders of this Court. He also filed another suit against 13 defendants including his brother Anand Datwani and company, being CS(OS) No.1798/2011, seeking a decree of declaration that the Joint Development Agreement dated 23rd October, 2007 signed by Pacifica Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd. and