S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. This common judgment will dispose of four first appeals (RFA Nos. 732, 855, 878 and 912 of 2003) which challenge the judgment dated 23.08.2003 of the learned Additional District Judge (hereafter “the Trial Court”) in Suit no 188 of 2000. The suit, was instituted by Ms. Madhur Bhargava, Ms. Gayatari Bhargava and Ms. Shraddha Bhargav; (hereafter “the plaintiffs”); the defendants were Arati Bhargava, Bharati Bhargava, (hereafter referred to as D-1 and D-2 or collectively as “the sisters”) and Ajay Sanghi (third defendant) and Ekta Agro Industries Ltd. (fourth defendant) (hereafter referred to as “the tenants” or “D-3” and “D-4”). The plaintiffs’ appeal (RFA No. 732/2003) is restricted to the denial of mesne profits. The sisters’ appeal (RFA 855/2003) challenges the findings and decree of the trial court denying their title to the suit property as well as the decree for possession; whereas the tenants’ appeals (RFA NOs. 878/03 and 912/03) challenge the decree for possession granted to the plaintiffs, against them.

2. The plaintiffs sought a decree for possession and mesne profits in respect of the second floor terrace with construction thereon of Property no. 2522/X (i.e. front and hind portions on the 3rd floor) on plot no. 3/13-B, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). The suit was decreed partially to the extent that the claim for recovery of possession was allowed, and the claim for recovery of mesne profits was denied.

3. The facts emerging from the pleadings and admitted at the stage of the appeals by the parties are that one Mrs. Savitri Devi Bhargava (“Savitri Devi”) married one Shri Dularey Lal Bhargava (“Dularey Lal”) in 1940/1941. Their marriage did not work out and Savitri Devi left the matrimonial house at Lucknow. She took her eldest child and at that time only son, Kavi Kumar Bhargava (referred to as “Kavi Kumar” or “the son”) with her. At the time of separation, Savitri Devi’s mother-in-law gave her substantial cash and jewellery. While the plaintiffs claim that the cash and jewellery were given to Savitri Devi as her Stridhan, the sisters assert that these were given for creating a trust in favour of the children (of Savitri Devi and Dularey Lal). Even after leaving Lucknow, Savitri Devi stayed on and off with her husband Dularey Lal. They had two daughters, first in 1950 and then in 1952 (D-2 Bharti, and D-1 Arti,). Using this jewellery, Savitri Devi made prudent investments and bought the following properties in the years 1953-54:

(1) Commercial plot measuring 44.44 sq. yards being No. 3/13-B, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi from the Delhi Improvement Trust. A three storeyed construction on this plot (ground, first and second floor) and a basement was completed;

(2) A two storeyed residential built up property No. E-15, 16, Nizamudin West, New Delhi and a barsati. This was acquired on September 1, 1959 with the help of a loan raised from bank.

4. The son and the two daughters were brought up by Savitri Devi. Kavi Kumar, the son, on completion of his college education joined Indian Police Service and some time thereafter married the first plaintiff, daughter of a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service on 21st April 1969. This marriage, allege the Plaintiffs, however, did not carry the approval of Savitri Devi and on that count serious differences arose between the son and his wife on the one hand, and the mother, on the other. The plaintiffs alleged that the sisters exploited the situation for their personal gain.

5. Kavi Kumar and his wife (the first plaintiff) had a girl child, Pooja, who unfortunately did not survive; her birth was not taken too kindly by Savitri Devi. The suit alleges that this was followed by an era of abortions/miscarriages suffered by the first plaintiff for a period of about ten years and she (i.e. the daughter in law) could neither win love nor sympathy of Savitri Devi despite her being respectful and courteous to her through-out