JAYANT NATH, J.

I.A. Nos. 12407, 15204/2017

1. I.A. Nos. 12407/2017 is filed seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction. This court on 27.10.2017 had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and title of the four suit properties mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. I.A. No. 15204/2017 is filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for vacation of the ex-parte injunction order passed on 27.10.2017.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, partition and permanent prohibitory injunction regarding the following agricultural properties:-

(i) Land admeasuring 12 Bigha and 1 Biswa falling in Khasra No. 22/5 Min (2-15), 31/1 Min (91/2), 32/4 (2-15,) 32/5 (4-6), 32-6/1 (1-15-1/2), situated in village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

(ii) Land admeasuring 23 Bigha and 19 Biswa (14 Bigha and 7 Biswa in the name of the defendant No. 1 and 9 Bigha and 12 Biswa in the name of his wife, defendant No. 2) falling in Mustatil No. 36, Khasra No. 1(4-15), 2 (4-16), 3(4-11), 26 (0-5), Mustatil No. 29, Khasra No. 24 (4-16), 25 (4-16) situated in Village Rawla Khanpur, Kapashera, Delhi.

(iii) Land admeasuring 28 Bigha and 19 Biswa faillign in Mustatil No. 5, Khasra Nos. 19 South (4-16, 20 (4016), 21/1 (2-0, 22 (4-16), 23 (2-05), 12 (1-02), 11 (1-16), 18 (1-14), 21/2 (2-09) Mustatil No. 6, Khasra No. 16/1 (2- 0), 15/2 (0-16) and 25/3 (0-09), in Village Issapur, New Delhi.

(iv) Land measuring 6 Bigha and 10 Biswa Falling in Mustatil No. 29, Khasra No. 29/2, situated in Village Pindwala Khurd, New Delhi.

3. When IA No. 12407/2017 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC came up for hearing before this court on 27.10.2017, this court noted the submissions of the plaintiff that the suit properties were inherited by the father of the plaintiff, namely, defendant No. 1 by virtue of sale deeds dated 10.11.1995, 05.12.1995 and 08.12.1995 and that as the properties devolved upon defendant No. 1 by way of inheritance, the plaintiff cannot be ousted from the share of the plaintiff. Based on the above submissions, this court had, as noted above, passed directions to maintain status quo with regard to possession and title of the suit properties mentioned in para 3 of the plaint.

4. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1, i.e. the father and defendant No. 2, i.e. the mother. Defendant No. 3 is his brother and defendants No. 4 to 6 are his sisters.

5. The plaint tries to create a web to entangle all the properties of the parents in the present litigation. The narration of the title to the properties starts from the plaintiff's forefather Sh. Ramji Lal who said to have owned 100 (perhaps acres) of land. After the death of Sh. Ramji Lal, great grandfather of the plaintiff, Sh. Lala Ram became the recorded owner of the said entire estate. Sh. Lala Ram expired somewhere in 1965. Thereafter, the grandfather of the plaintiff Sh. Prabhu became the recorded owner of the said properties. In 1978, a part of the properties were acquired by Union of India. However, land measuring 62 Bighas and 13 Biswas situated in the revenue state of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi remained with the plaintiff's grandfather Sh.Prabhu.

6. Sh. Prabhu, grandfather of the plaintiff allegedly sold 4 Bighas 17 Biswas land out of the balance agricultural land left to different parties including M/s Agarwal & Agarwal Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Orbit Industries Ltd. It is pleaded that remaining agricultural land situated in Village Mehrauli was distributed by the grandfather Sh. Prabhu to his four sons, namely, Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Pratap Singh, Sh. Mahender Singh and Sh. Gajender Singh. The division was effected by way of sale deeds in favour of his sons. To Sh. Pratap Singh and his wife, i.e. defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the following land was allegedly sold:

"II. Land admeasuring 23 Bigha and 19 Biswa (14 Bigha and 7 Biswa in the name of the defendant No. 1 and 9 Bigha and 12 Biswa in the name of his wife, defendant No. 2) falling in Mu