G.S.SISTANI, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF has filed the present suit seeking a declaration in her favour that she is the lawful owner of the terrace floor/third floor of the property situated at L -18, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ,,the suit property). The plaintiff also seeks permanent injunction restraining defendants from constructing any building till the plaintiffs right to the terrace floor (third floor) in the suit property is acknowledged and reserved.
(2.) SUMMONS in the suit and notice in the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were issued on 25.4.2011. On 25.5.2011, counsel for defendants no.3 and 4 had made a statement that defendants no.3 and 4 would not raise construction beyond second floor without prior permission of the Court. The Court had observed that the above statement made by counsel for defendants no.3 and 4 would not come in the way of the building plan of the suit property, being sanctioned by the competent authority, subject to the plan otherwise being in order. On 9.9.2013, following issues were framed in this matter: "8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following issues are framed: (i) Is the plaintiff entitled to a declaration that she is the lawful owner of the terrace floor/3rd floor of the property L -18, Kailash Colony, New Delhi -48 as per the sale deed of 2006? OPP (ii) Is the plaintiff entitled to permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from interfering with the lawful right of the Plaintiff in the terrace floor/3 rd floor of L -18, Kailash Colony, New Delhi -48? OPP (iii) Is the Plaintiff entitled to a declaration that the Will dated 14th May 2002 is illegal? OPP (iv) Is the suit for declaration not maintainable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPD (v) Is the suit bad for mis -joinder and non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD (vi) Relief.
(3.) ON the same date i.e. 9.9.2013, both the parties had agreed that issues no.1 and 2 can be decided without evidence being led as the documents, relied upon by the parties in relation thereto, were not in dispute. Arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the parties on both the above issues.;