S. K. Mahajan, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that the defendants by an agreement to sell dated 30h June, 1993 after receiving the total consideration, had agreed to sell the ground floor of the property R-82/5, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi to one Sh. R. K. Aggarwal. Besides the agreement to sell defendant No. 2 as general attorney of defendant No. 1 had also executed a general power of attorney,, the special power of attorney and the Will and all these documents were registered before the Sub-Registrar. The receipt; affidavit and possession certificate were also executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal. The said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal in turn by an agreement to sell dated 17th January, 1995 agreed to sell to plaintiff No. 1 one-half of the ground floor comprising of one big hall for a total consideration of Rs. 2,11,000. 00. Plaintiff No. 1 paid the said amount to the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal and a receipt and possession letter was duly delivered by him to plaintiff No. l. General power of attorney and special power of attorney were also executed on 17th January, 1995 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 wherein complete rights to deal with the property in whatsoever manner, were given to the said plaintiff. Vide an agreement dated 20th January, 1995 plaintiff No. 1 inducted plaintiff No. 2 as a tenant in the portion which he had purchased from Sh. R. K. Aggarwal. It is alleged that defendants started making illegal, dishonest and malafide demands for extra money from Sh. R. K. Aggarwal and on his refusing to meet these demands, the said defendant issued a letter dated 7th February, 1995 allegedly revoking the general power of attorney issued in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and a suit was also filed by defendant No. 2 against the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal for a declaration that the documents executed by her in favour of the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal were void on account of the same having been obtained by undue influence and coercion. R. K. Aggarwal for a declaration that the documents executed by her in favour of the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal were void on account of the same having been obtained by undue influence and coercion. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants had started unauthorised, illegal construction on the third and fourth floors of the property without any sanction or permission from the municipal authorities and by raising of this construction there was an apprehension and risk to the safety of occupants of the building including the plaintiffs and their employees as the building was not strong enough to bear the load of the additional floors i. e. third and fourth floors. The suit was, therefore, filed for an injunction restraining, defendants from raising any unauthorised construction on the third and fourth floors of the property and for mandatory injunction directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take steps to demolish unauthorised construction raised by the defendants. ( 2 ) BY an ad interim order passed on 18th October, 1995 this Court had restrained the defendants from raising any construction in the property. A local commissioner was also appointed to visit the property and give his report about the existing construction. The local commissioner has since filed his report and has stated that the suit property was already constructed upto the second floor and new construction was being raised on the third and fourth floors and a mumty upon the fourth floor. It has also been noted by the local commissioner that there was not even a single load bearing wall on the ground floor premises occupied by the plaintiffs and there were no columns on the right hand side of the building. ( 3 ) WRITTEN statement has been filed by the defendants and it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right title or interest in the property and they had not approached the Court with clean hands. The suit was also sought to be hit by delay and laches. The sale of the property in favour of Sh. R. K. Aggarwal is denied and it is stated that the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal by exercising undue influence and by mis-representation and fraud got some documents illegally and fraudulently executed from defendant No. 2 and the same would have no effect whatsoever on the title of the defendants. The sale of the property in favour of Sh. R. K. Aggarwal is denied and it is stated that the said Sh. R. K. Aggarwal by exercising undue influence and by mis-representation and fraud got some documents illegally and fraudulently executed from defendant No. 2 and the same would have no effect whatsoever on the title of the defendants. The defendants had, however, avoided to mention in the written statement as to whether the construction raised by them was sanctioned by the municipal authorities or that they were carrying out such construction with the permission of-municipal authorities. ( 4 ) AT this stage, the only question which I have to decide is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction on the third and fourth floors of the property. It is not disputed that plaintiff is in possession of the ground floor of the property. Documents have been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that the defendants had in fact executed the agreement to sell, general power of attorney and Will etc. transferring the property in favour of Sh. R. K. Aggarwal and possession thereto was also delivered to him. Documents have also been placed on record to show that Sh. R. K. Aggarwal in fact entered into an agreement with plaintiff No. 1 for sale of one- half portion of the ground floor of the property and had received the total sale consideration thereof. Documents have also been placed on record to show that possession of ground floor portion which had been transferred to plaintiff No. 1, had been given to him by Sh. R. K. Aggarwal. I am, therefore, satisfied that plaintiffs were in possession of the ground floor of the property. The question as to whether the documents under which the property is alleged to have been transferred in favour of Sh. R. K. Aggarwal by the defendants, were executed under undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion and fraud will have to be decided only after the parties are allowed opportunity to lead evidence. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that the said documents were executed under undue influence and coercion nor details of alleged undue influence and coercion have been given in the written statement. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that the said documents were executed under undue influence and coercion nor details of alleged undue influence and coercion have been given in the written statement. The said documents have been duly registered before the Sub-Registrar and the presumption therefore is that the same had been executed without any undue influence and coercion. Moreover, the documents were executed as far back as in June 1993 and the letter revoking the said documents had been issued only in February 1995 after Sh. R. K. Aggarwal had transferred possession of a portion of ground floor to plaintiff No. l. No explanation has been given as to why there was so much of delay in issuing the letter of revocation or in filing the suit for declaring the said documents illegal. The suit for declaring the documents to be void was filed only in August 1995. Report of the local commissioner clearly shows that there are no load bearing walls on the ground floor and on the face of the fact that defendants have not been able to place on record any sanction or permission from the municipal authorities to raise construction on the third and fourth floors of the property, prima facie, I feel that the said construction being raised is wholly illegal and the defendants have no right whatsoever to carry on the same. Courts cannot be a party to the illegal construction to be carried on, once it has been brought to its notice. I am, therefore, satisfied that the plaintiffs have been able to make out a prima facie good case for the grant of an injunction in their favour. Balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the plaintiffs and in case the injunction is not granted, they are likely to suffer an irreparable injury. Construction being wholly illegal and being carried on in the property which does not even have the load bearing walls and the columns on the ground floor, there is a danger to the entire property which will cause necessarily irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiffs. ( 5 ) I, therefore, allow this application and confirm the order dated 18th October, 1995 till the disposal of the suit. ( 6 ) ANY observation made in this order will not affect the merits of the case.