The court upheld the validity of the family settlement and recognized the plaintiff's ownership based on the mutual agreement, despite the lack of registration. The lack of evidence to support the defendant's claim of being a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act influenced the court's decision.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. Smt. Laxmi Devi was the owner of property bearing Nos. Y-316 and Y-317 which is a land measuring 50 sq. yds. (25 sq. yds. each) situated in J.J. Colony, Camp No. 1, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 (hereinafter, "suit property").

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff - Mr. Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") and the Appellant/Defendant - Mr. Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter, "Defendant") are the sons of Smt. Laxmi Devi. A mutual agreement was duly signed by her by which she fixed the share amongst her three sons i.e. the Plaintiff, the Defendant and the Sh. Ajay Kumar. The manner in which the division was made by her is contained in the said mutual agreement and is as under:

"1. Shri Rajesh (legal heir of the first party) owner part of the above said property 3.1/2 x 20 and IInd Floor with roof rights and Stair case & loby of first floor common uses by the member of above mention and there are no any make additional alternation in the space of loby and also owner under portion of stair case in favour of the Rajesh.

2. Shri Sanjay Kumar (legal heir of the first party) owner part of the bearing property No. Y-316 & 317, situated at Camp No. 1, Nangloi, Delhi, go to ownership only one shop which size 7./1/2 x 20 approx. with Ist floor one room (10x10) and one bathroom, and stair case and loby both are plot uses by the mutual common uses without any additional alteration. 3. Shri Ajay Kumar (legal heir of the first party) owner part of the bearing property No. Y-316 & 317, situated at Camp No. 1, Nangloi, Delhi, go to ownership only one room 10" x 20" with kitchen said space only part of the property No. Y-316, common stair case on ground floor and common uses of the both are plot loby without additional alternation"

3. This mutual agreement was signed by all the brothers and their mother. It is the Plaintiff's case that upon the request of the Defendant, 3 x 20 portion of the Ground Floor was allowed to be retained as some articles/belongings of the Defendant were lying there. The said portion remained in the Defendant's possession, and he refused to vacate the same. Despite intervention of relatives, he did not vacate and finally the Plaintiff got legal notice dated 25th February, 2010 served on the Defendant. However, since the Defendant did not vacate the property despite receipt of the notice, the Plaintiff filed the subject suit seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the suit property specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the plaint.

(b) a decree for mesne profits @ Rs. 5000/- per month w.e.f. 21.10.2009 and pendete lite and future upto realization of the possession of the suit property.

(c) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, his legal heirs, managers, attorneys from parting with the possession of suit property creating third party interest and causing injury damage the same.

(d) Cost of the suit may also be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. "

4. The Defendant set up a defense that he is a tenant in the property on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. It was claimed that though the rent was being paid, no rent receipt was issued. It was claimed by the Defendant that he filed a civil suit for injunction being suit no. 57/2010 which was decreed in his favour. Thus, it was claimed that the subject suit was a counter blast. Paragraph 5 of the written statement reads as under:

"5. That the plaintiff has filed a mutual agreement with the suit, and the said mutual agreement was executed between the mother of plaintiff as well as defendant; but defendant later come to know that the executor of the said agreement is not owner of the property in question. In fact father of the plaintiff as well as defendant was owner of the suit property, hence the said agreement has no locus standi in the eyes of law; hence the present suit is li