JAYANT NATH, J.

IA No. 14323/2016

1. This application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree based on admissions. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs for removing the defendant, her agents, etc. from one room on the ground floor of the suit property D-404, Defence Colony, New Delhi as shown in the site plan.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. 1 is the brother of defendant. Plaintiff No. 2 is the wife of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs are said to be the owners of the ground floor, first floor and second floor of the property being D-404, Defence Colony, New Delhi.

3. The defendant got married on 06.02.1998 and pursuant to her marriage started residing in her matrimonial home in Mumbai. The father of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant passed away on 12.12.1998. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs out of their own self acquired funds bought the suit property. The basement and ground floor was purchased in the name of plaintiff No. 1 vide sale deed dated 14.06.2001. Similarly, plaintiff No. 2 became the owner of the first and second floor along with roof rights of the suit property vide sale deed dated 14.06.2001. In 2005, the defendant due to various problems in her marriage came back and started living in the one room on the ground floor. The plaintiffs allowed the defendant to reside in the said suit property on gratuitous basis. Litigation was filed by the defendant against her ex-husband. Subsequently, a settlement was arrived at on 26.11.2009 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre wherein the defendant received an alimony of Rs.36,50,0000/- from her ex-husband and whereby, divorce by mutual consent was effected.

4. It is pleaded that the defendant is a chronic litigant, well versed with the court procedures and is aware of the rigors of law to extort and blackmail people. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs allowed the defendant to reside in one room on the ground floor being the brother and the entire expenses for running the household, electricity dues, house tax, etc. were taken care of by plaintiff No. 1. It is pleaded that lately, the defendant has been threatening, plaintiff No. 1 to give her share in the self acquired properties and business of plaintiff No. 1. It is further pleaded that she has also misbehaved with the mother of plaintiff No. 1. On 26.09.2016 at 8.30 a.m., the defendant called the police and got a false and frivolous FIR registered against plaintiff No. 1 under Sections 451, 323 and 506 IPC alleging that plaintiff No. 1 had hit the defendant, slapped her and forcibly tried to throw her out of the house. Hence, the present suit has been filed.

5. The defendant has filed her written statement. In her written statement, multiple pleas have been raised. It is pleaded that the property has been purchased from the funds of the joint family business belonging to the late father of the parties, namely, late Sh. Ravi Shankar Tandon and that the property is a benami property and even, the defendant has a right in the same. It is further stated that the suit property was as agreed and desired by the late father to be in the joint name of the plaintiffs, defendant and the mother-Smt. Promila Rani Tandon. However, the plaintiffs taking advantage of the untimely death of the father and the matrimonial discord being faced by the defendant siphoned off huge sum of money from the family business by obtaining signatures on multiple documents. It is further stated that the defendant has a right to reside in the suit property in view of the family arrangement by which she was induced to enter into under the promise of being given her due share. Another defence taken is that the suit premises have been purchased from the funds generated after disposing joint family property in which the defendant had an equal right and ent