PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The dispute in the present appeal is between the son of Late Sh.Kishan Lal Gulati and the daughter-in-law of Late Sh.Kishan Lal Gulati.

2. The genealogy tree of the family of Late Sh. Kishan Lal Gulati is as under:-

Late Sh. Kishan Lal Gulati
Ashok Gulati (Son)	Amrit Gulati (Son)/Defendant	Anil Gulati (Son)
	Promila Gulati (Wife)/Plaintiff

3. Ms. Promila Gulati instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits in the year 2010 against Mr. Anil Gulati (brother of her late husband) in respect of property bearing Municipal No.205, AGCR Enclave, Delhi – 110 092 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Property’).

4. Needless to state, Ms.Promila Gulati was the plaintiff and her brother-in-law was the defendant in the suit. In our decision we shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit.

5. In essence, it was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated September 03, 1984 executed by her father Late Sh.K.B.Midha. She pleaded that the suit property consisted of a ground, first, second and a mezzanine floor and a terrace. She pleaded that the plaintiff along with her children resides on the ground floor of the property. She further pleaded that on account of close family relation between the plaintiff and defendant, as also the fact that the defendant did not own any residential property, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to reside with his wife and children on the first, second and mezzanine floors of the property. She pleaded that no rent was being charged, the possession was permissive and thus the status of the defendant in the suit property was that of a mere licensee. She pleaded that on two occasions she terminated the license of the defendant to reside in the suit property, firstly orally in the year 2009 and thereafter by way of a legal notice dated May 03, 2010, but the defendant failed to vacate the suit property, which constrained the plaintiff to file the suit in question. Mandatory injunction sought was that the defendant should remove all his belongings from the suit property. Permanent injunction sought was that the defendant be permanently restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property, parting with possession of the suit property in favour of any third party and interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. In addition thereto, the plaintiff also sought a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) per month for having illegally occupied the suit property from the date of filing of suit till its realization.

6. It is apparent from the pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiff claims title to the suit property under the title document being the registered gift deed dated September 03, 1984 under which her father gifted the suit property to her.

7. In the written statement filed, the defendant essentially pleaded that the plaintiff is the benami owner of the suit property. It was admitted that the plot on which the building was constructed was owned by Late Sh. K.B. Midha, the father of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the gift deed was a devise because Late Sh.Kishan Lal Gulati (father of defendant/father-in-law of plaintiff) had paid a sale consideration to Late Sh. K.B.Midha and the gift deed in question was a result of the said alleged sale transaction. It was pleaded that during his lifetime Late Sh. Kishanl Lal Gulati, from out of his own funds, and that of the joint family raised the construction of a building on the plot.

8. In order to clearly understand the pleadings in the written statement relating to the character of suit property and status of ownership of the plaintiff in the suit property, it would be relevant to reproduc