IMPORTANT POINT
Application under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC has to be decided before issue of maintainability of suit taken up for consideration, when amendment prayed for, to clarify on existing hearing in relation to plea raised qua non-maintainability of suit.

Manmohan Singh, J.—In The Mahabharata, Book 12: Santi Parva: Mokshadharma Parva: Section CCLXVI at p. 248, Bhishma said: “..... The mother is as the fire-stick with respect to the bodies of all men. She is the panacea for all kinds of calamities. The existence of the mother invests one with protection; the reverse deprives one of all protection....Able or disabled, lean or robust, the son is always protected by the mother....There is no shelter (protection against the sun) like the mother. There is no refuge like the mother. There is no defence like the mother. There is no one so dear as the mother. For having borne him in her womb the mother is the son’s Dhatri. For having been the chief cause of his birth, she is his Janani. For having nursed his young limbs into growth, she is called Amva. For bringing forth a child possessed of courage she is called Virasu. For nursing and looking after the son she is called Sura....”

In Ramayana, at 2.111.9, in Rama’s words to Vasishtha who accompanies Bharata to the forests for bringing back Rama to Ayodhya, it is said? ? (Na supratikaram tattu maatraa pitraa cha yatkrutam), meaning thereby that it is difficult for the children to repay the debt of what the mother and the father have done to bring them up.

Frank Pittman, a U.S. psychiatrist and family therapist in Man Enough, (1993) said “However patriarchal the world, at home the child knows that his mother is the source of all power. The hand that rocks the cradle rules his world. . . . The son never forgets that he owes his life to his mother, not just the creation of it but the maintenance of it, and that he owes her a debt he cannot conceivably repay, but which she may call in at any time.”

In India, the mother is worshipped as the goddess Lakshmi (Goddess of prosperity) of the house. The Sruti (Taittiriya Upanishad) emphatically declares: “MATRU DEVO BHAVA” (Let thy mother be thy God).

2. In the present case, the defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff. She is about 92 years old widow lady. She has undergone a major heart surgery. She is on wheelchair and bed-ridden. She claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property and is being forced to stay in the rented premises. She has no sufficient source of income for her daily medical, household expenses and other expenses. She is requesting to the plaintiff to provide one room, who has three bedrooms in his possession at the third floor. She was present in Court. She wishes to die in her own house. She has informed that it has become impossible to survive. The plaintiff is not agreeable to accommodate her. He says that he has no spare accommodation and he is residing with his own family of three members.

3. Under these circumstances, still this Court feels to decide the matter on merits. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No.N-18, Jangpura Extension, Delhi- 14 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:-

a) Property bearing No.N-18, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014 may please be ordered to be partitioned by giving 1/5th share each to plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4.

b) Preliminary decree for declaration may please be ordered to be passed declaring Relinquishment Deeds dated 18.11.99, Rectification Deed dated 30.3.2000 and Sale Deeds dated 4.3.2002, 3.12.2004 and 16.8.2005, to be null and void.

c) A decree for permanent injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the third floor of property bearing N-18, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi.

d) Cost of the application be also awarded.

4. The status quo order in respect of basement and third floor was passed on 1st May, 2006. The said order is continuing as of today.

5. The following issues were framed on 31st January, 2014:-

“(I) Whether the suit as framed is bar