Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. Mrs. Gobind Kaur Kohli – Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiff’) filed a suit for mandatory injunction against her son and daughter-in-law, Shri Arbinder Singh Kohli and Mrs. Rabinder Kaur Kohli – Appellants/Defendants (hereinafter, ‘Defendants’).

2. The Plaintiff claimed ownership rights in suit property bearing No.E-32-A, Neb Valley, Neb Sarai, New Delhi-110068 admeasuring 500 square yards falling in Khasra No.234/2, 234/3 and 234/2/1 in the Revenue Estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘suit property’). She claimed that she had acquired ownership vide Agreement to Sell dated 17th May, 2002. Upon purchase of the property she, along with her husband, her son and daughter-in-law along with their children moved into the suit property. She claimed that she had permitted the Defendants to reside in the first floor and also used half portion of the garage of the ground floor as an office.

3. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants carried out changes in the property in 2006 when she and her husband were on vacation. She was forced to lodge a police complaint on 16th August, 2006 and upon the intervention of the police, the Defendants agreed to restore the premises to its original shape. However, despite agreeing, the Defendants did not abide by their assurances. In July, 2009, again while the Plaintiff and her husband were visiting USA, the Defendants applied and obtained an electricity connection from BSES which was supplying electricity to Sainik Farms. This was done on the basis of a Power of Attorney dated 17th May, 2002 which was executed in favour of the daughter-in-law at the time when the Agreement to Sell was executed. Realizing that the Defendants may have some oblique motives, the Plaintiff and her husband contacted Shri Gautam Kapoor who had executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.2. The said Shri Gautam Kapoor cancelled the said Power of Attorney and the said cancellation was registered with the Sub-Registrar on 10th December, 2009. After cancelling the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Defendant No.2, a fresh Power of Attorney was executed by Shri Gautam Kapoor in favour of the Plaintiff’s husband. In view of the misbehavior of the Defendants and their children towards the Plaintiff and her husband and use of abuses and derogatory language, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendants to vacate the suit property by notice dated 29th August, 2010 (inadvertently mentioned as 29th October, 2010).

4. The Defendants replied vide letter dated 9th October, 2010 and refused to comply with the requisitions of the Plaintiff. In the said reply, the plea was taken by Defendant No.1 that he had contributed equal funds for acquiring the suit property and hence the Plaintiff does not have sole ownership. The Plaintiff then filed the present subject suit seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants directing the Defendants to remove themselves and their belongings from the suit property.

AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

Decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, directing the Defendants to delivery over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

(ii) A decree of injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives and/or anybody claiming through them or on their behalf from in any manner whatsoever from re-entering in any portion of the suit property.

(iii) Mesne Profit/damages for Defendants unauthorisedly using the suit property equivalent to market rate of rent of suit property.”

5. In the written statement, the Defendants took the plea that the property is a joint family property belonging to the parents and the Defendants. Since the Plaintiff is only one member of the joint family, she has no right to call upon the Defendants to leave the suit property. It was also claime