Court grants possession and mesne profits in favor of plaintiff in Delhi flat dispute.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits for a flat in Delhi. The defendants, family members of the plaintiff, were denied rights to possession based on contributions to the purchase of the flat. Arguments of false statements and claims of possession rights were dismissed. The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting possession and mesne profits, with costs awarded. Defendants were given the opportunity to vacate the flat within a specified period and file affidavits for further court consideration.

---

---

Issues involved: Suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of a flat in Delhi.

Summary:
1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession of a portion of a flat in Delhi from the defendants, who are family members. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the allegations and claimed rights based on contributions to the purchase of the flat. The court found that such contributions do not grant rights to possession.

2. During the hearing, the defendants' counsel argued that the plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands, alleging false statements regarding harassment. The court clarified that such arguments do not constitute a defense to a suit for possession, emphasizing that possession rights are not discretionary.

3. The defendants provided a document claiming rights in the property, but the court ruled that it did not grant them the right to retain possession. The court held that only the demise of the plaintiff would allow inheritance rights, not prior claims based on contributions to purchase consideration.

4. The defendants raised issues of undervaluation of the suit and mentioned a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among family members, but failed to provide details or pleadings to support their claims. The court denied the request for an adjournment to amend the written statement, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff for possession and mesne profits.

5. The court granted liberty to the plaintiff to apply for an inquiry into mesne profits if the defendants resist the execution of the decree. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, and the decree was confined to defendants No. 1 and 2 due to the minority of defendants No. 3 and 4.

6. The defendants expressed willingness to vacate the flat after a specified period, and were granted liberty to file affidavits to that effect for further consideration by the court.

---