1. The plaintiff, aged 73 years at the time of institution of the suit, in the year 2009 instituted this suit against her three brothers impleaded as defendants no.1 to 3 viz. a) Narendra Pratap Bhalla, b) Bharat Bhushan Bhalla; and, c) Mahinder Pratap Bhalla and her sister Smt. Kamla Ohri (defendant no.4).

2. It was the case in the plaint i) that the plaintiff had been suffering from chronic depression for the past 30/40 years and had been under psychiatric treatment since 1961; ii) that the plaintiff was residing at Mumbai since 1982 but used to visit her parents and stay with them in Delhi in property No.S-61, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi; iii) that the plaintiff, in August, 2008, shifted to Delhi along with her husband; the husband of the plaintiff died on 19th September, 2008; iv) that the condition of the plaintiff deteriorated in the last few months preceding the filing of the suit and the plaintiff had been suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder with symptoms suggestive of Dementia; v) that the neuropsychological assessment of the plaintiff reflected impairment in functioning of temporal lobe, Visuospatial Perceptual ability and Parieto-Occipital Lobe functioning; vi) that plot bearing No.S-61, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi, ad-measuring 500 sq. yds. was purchased by the plaintiff’s father Sh. Harcharan Dass Bhalla from his own funds and the father of the plaintiff carried out construction on the said property with his own funds; vii) that Sh. Harcharan Dass Bhalla, father of the plaintiff died intestate on 4th August, 1980 leaving the plaintiff and the defendants as his only children and Smt. Basant Bhalla as his wife, as his only natural heirs; viii) that Smt. Basant Bhalla, mother of the parties to the suit also expired intestate on 26th January, 2007, leaving the plaintiff and the defendants as her only natural heirs; ix) that the plaintiff thus has a 1/5th share in property No. S-61, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi; x) that the defendants no.1 to 3, being the brothers of the plaintiff, are occupying the ground, first and second floors of the said property as co-owners and the plaintiff, though not in physical possession, is in symbolic and deemed possession, jointly with the defendants no.1 to 3; xi) that the defendants always recognized the plaintiff as joint owner of the property; xii) that the plaintiff visited defendants no.1 to 3 in the property on 28th September, 2008 and stayed with the defendants till 13th October, 2008; xiii) that the defendant no.1 asked the plaintiff to sign on some typed papers without understanding the contents of the same and also threatened the plaintiff; xiv) that the plaintiff was taken to some place where some other persons were also present and further signatures of the plaintiff obtained under threat and coercion; xv) that the plaintiff was cautioned of not disclosing the same to her family members; xvi) that the plaintiff being scared, signed the papers without any objection; xvii) that the plaintiff informed her son of the said incident; xviii) that when the son of the plaintiff enquired from the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 shouted at him also and the defendants no.2 and 3 denied any involvement; xix) that the plaintiff is not aware of the nature of the documents got signed from her; and, xx) that the documents which were got signed from the plaintiff are bound to be cancelled and declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. On the aforesaid pleas, reliefs of a) partition of property No.S-61, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi; b) injunction restraining defendants from dealing with the said property; c) recovery of mesne profits; and, d) declaration that the documents got executed from the plaintiff are null and void and unenforceable against the plaintiff, were claimed.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff, in the hearing on 27th November, 2017, informed that the plaintiff was claiming the reliefs of declaration as sham, fabricated, null