1. The two plaintiffs viz. Pankaj Shah and Rajeev Shah have instituted this suit for, (i) recovery of possession of property No.241, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi; (ii) recovery of mesne profits; and, (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

2. The counsel for the plaintiffs however states that the defendant is in exclusive possession of the property and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property; the relief of permanent injunction thus can be only for the period after the plaintiffs have recovered possession from the defendant.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs, that (i) the father of the plaintiffs became a member of Sarai Julaina Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., the developer of the colony of Sukhdev Vihar and the plot of land underneath the property aforesaid was sub-leased to the father of the plaintiffs who had raised construction thereon; (ii) the father of the plaintiffs died on 22nd May, 2001 leaving a Will dated 7th October, 1999 bequeathing the entire property in favour of the plaintiffs who are the only children of their parents and the mother of the plaintiffs had pre-deceased their father; (iii) the defendant, who was known to the plaintiffs through the mother-in-law of the plaintiff no.1, was appointed as the caretaker of the property as the plaintiff no.1 is a resident of USA and the plaintiff no.2 is a resident of Ahmedabad in Gujarat; (iv) the defendant was also allowed to occupy one of the rooms in the property; (v) that the plaintiffs, prior to the institution of the suit, asked the defendant to vacate the property but the defendant refused to do so and hence the present suit.

4. The suit came up first before this Court on 17th March, 2016 when while issuing summons thereof, vide ex parte ad interim order the defendant was restrained from selling or disposing of or transferring or dealing in any manner or creating third party rights in the property.

5. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement pleading that, (i) the plaintiffs have never resided in the property and the defendant is living adversely in the property for more than 15 years and has got title to the property by way of adverse possession and is in possession of the property in her own right and not as caretaker; (ii) as per the own admissions of the plaintiffs also, the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land underneath the property which is leasehold; the plaintiffs thus have no title to the property or right to file the present suit; (iii) the Will set up by the plaintiffs of their father is ineffective because the same has not been probated and no letters of administration with respect thereto has been granted; the Will is forged; (iv) since the plaintiffs are not in possession, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable; (v) the valuation of the property is not more than Rs.75 lacs and the plaintiffs have wrongly valued the property at Rs.6 crores and the suit, as per correct valuation of the property, is below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court; (vi) the defendant and her husband and their children entered the said property in 1997 and since then are residing in the property; the husband of the defendant has expired 7–8 years back and now the defendant and her children are residing in the property, without any claim or interference from anyone; (vii) the plaintiff no.1 having settled in USA, even otherwise has ceased to be the sub-lessee of the land underneath the property; (viii) the Aadhaar Card, Election Card and Passbook of the defendant and her children show the address as of the property and the defendant and her children have also been receiving correspondence at the said address; (ix) the defendant was not known to the mother-in-law of the plaintiff no.1 and was never appointed as the caretaker and had entered the property along with her husband and children, finding it to be lying vaca