The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's triable issues regarding the execution of the deeds and the balance of convenience favored maintaining status quo.

M.L. Mehta, J.

IA 18163/2013 (under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151, CPC filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2) Counsel appearing for the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 seeks permission to withdraw this application.

Heard Allowed.

The application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

IA 16049/2013 (under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC filed on behalf of defendant No. 3), IA 16050/2013 (under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC filed on behalf of the defendant No. 3) and IA 12612/2013 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff)

1. Pleadings in the applications are complete. In the application being IA 12612/2013 filed by the plaintiff, an interim order was passed on 12.8.2013 to the effect that all the parties are restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The defendant No. 3 has filed aforementioned applications, one being under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC for vacation of the aforesaid interim order and the second being, under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint, alleging the same to be devoid of cause of action, and not maintainable as per the law.

2. The arguments have been heard on all the three applications together.

3. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, possession, partition, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The defendant No. 1 is her brother, defendant No. 2 his brother's wife and defendant 3 is the purchaser of second floor of the suit premises from defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

4. The admitted case of the parties is that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 died intestate on 1.5.2006 leaving behind them as also their mother as the only legal heirs. Thus, by virtue of succession, all the three inherited one-third share each in the suit premises i.e. H-1474, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019. Both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 executed relinquishment deeds of their respective one-third shares in favour of their mother, on 25.5.2006, i.e. within about 24 days of the death of their father. On 26.6.2012, their mother executed a registered gift deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 as also his wife defendant No. 2. Armed with the gift deed in their favour, these defendants executed a sale deed of second floor along with the 25% undivided shares in the plot of the suit premises in favour of the defendant No. 3 on 16.7.2012 i.e. within a span of 20 days of the gift deed, for a total consideration of Rs. 55 lakh.

5. The plaintiff while maintaining that she executed a relinquishment deed of her one third share in favour of her mother, submits that this deed was executed in her favour so as to enable her mother to come out of the depression suffered due to shock and grief of the death of her husband and for impending financial hardships, so as to enable her to let out the premises, and have the rent. She also submits that defendant No. 1 had represented to her that relinquishment deed was also required for the mutation purposes, and that in any case, after the death of their mother, the entire premises was to be devolved in the names of both of them only. She states that on these representations, and keeping in view the health of her mother, she executed relinquishment deed of her share in favour of her mother. She alleges that the defendants had mala fide intentions to grab her one-third share and hatched a conspiracy to deprive her of her share. She also alleges that the above mentioned gift deed was not executed by her mother out of her own free will and consent, but by fraud and undue influence exercised by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. She alleges that from the contents of the said gift deed, it would appear that her mother paid stamp duty of Rs. 11,46,000/- for its registration, which she was unable to pay being the housewife and having no income or any money. In any case, it is also unbelievable that the huge amount of stamp duty would be paid by the person executing the gift deed and not by the donees. She submits that in f