Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking an injunction to direct respondents No.2 to 4 not to carry on or proceed with any constructional activity on the third floor of the suit property pursuant to sanctioned plan dated 26.11.2010. Other reliefs have also been sought. This application came up for hearing on 06.09.2011 and this Court directed that no construction activity will be done on the suit property, namely, D-51, Saket, New Delhi, till further orders without prior permission of the Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present plaint seeking various reliefs including a declaration that the plan sanctioned by MCD dated 26.11.2010 is null and void and injunction against the defendants that no construction in the suit property can be carried out on the terrace floor etc. The brief case of the plaintiff is that the property D-151, Saket, New Delhi was owned by defendants No.2 and 3. The said defendants entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. Batra Properties on 22.7.1989. As per the said collaboration agreement M/s.Batra Properties were required to construct the Ground Floor, First Floor and Barsati Floor. Thereafter the first floor was sold vide agreement to sell dated 28.11.1990 executed between plaintiff no.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 and M/s.Batra Properties. The registered General Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiff No.2 was registered by Sh.Suresh Batra, Partner of M/s.Batra Properties and defendants No.2 and 3. It is stated that the plaintiff could not get the sale deed executed as it is a leasehold property and the same has not been converted into freehold by DDA and defendants have not made any application despite repeated requests by the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs submit that pursuant to the said Agreement, the plaintiffs along with their family members are residing on the first floor of the said property. The plaintiff further claims that in terms of the agreement to sell executed in its favour, 33% land rights were sold to the plaintiff since there was equal distribution of land rights. In this regard the plaintiff relies upon the narration reproduced in the Agreement to Sell dated 28.11.1990 where it is stipulated that along with the first floor the transaction covers 33% undivided, indivisible and impartiable ownership rights in the land underneath.

4. It is further claimed that the FAR is to be distributed amongst the owners of the property on the basis of land rights hence it is claimed that FAR of the building has been increasing over a period of time. Hence, it is claimed that since 1/3rd of total FAR on the basis of land rights is belonging to the plaintiff, the said rights cannot be compromised by construction of additional space on the third floor. It is stated that the plaintiffs have non-restricted access to the terrace and same has been used jointly by the owners of the three floors.

5. It is further pointed out by the plaintiff that defendants no.2 and 3 have sold the ground floor to defendant no.5, second floor to defendant no.6 and sold terrace rights of second floor to defendant no.4. Defendant No.4 and 5 and 6 are family members of defendants No.2 and 3.

6. Plaintiff further claims that defendants in collusion with each other connived and filed an application for grant of sanction plan and on the strength of the plan sanctioned by MCD the defendants contemplate to raise illegally constructions on the third floor.

7. It is further stated that the construction in the suit property was raised in the year 1989, namely, 21 years ago. Hence, it is stated that the load bearing capacity of the suit property is weak and it cannot bear the load of the third floor of the suit property. Hence it is stated that the defendants cannot be permitted to endanger the life of the plaintiffs by carrying out construction on the 3rd Floor.

8. The defendants No.2 to 6 have filed their written statement. It is stated by def