K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) THIS order will govern the disposal of IAS 6339/89 and 10794/93. ( 2 ) SUIT was filed alleging that property No. 34/25, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi was owned by Kanwal Nain Khanna, father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 and grandfather of plaintiffs 2 and 3. He died in 1982 leaving behind his wife Smt. Ishwari Devi, two sons Rajinder Kumar Khanna and the defendant and the three daughters. Rajinder Kumar died in a road accident on 4. 1. 89 and plaintiff No. 1 is his wife while plaintiff 2 and 3 are his minor children. It is alleged that during his lifetime aforesaid Kanwal Nain Khanna had executed a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of his aforementioned two sons in equal shares. After his death. Plaintiff are jointly the owners of 112 share while the remaining 1/2 is owned by the defendant. It is stated that after the death of said Rajinder Kumar Khanna, defendant has started denying plaintiff s title to 1/2 share in the suit property. Defendant has also started threatening that he would sell the entire property as a result whereof plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss. It was prayed that a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs holding that they are jointly entitled to 1/2 share in suit property No. 34/25, West Patel Nagar and a Local Commissioner be appointed to suggest mode of partition of the property. ( 3 ) ALONGWITH palint, IA 6339/89 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the plaintiffs seeking to restrain the defendant from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of any portion of the suit property pending suit. In continuation of this IA, IA No. 10794/93 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, was further filed by the plaintiffs seeking identical relief. In the latter IA, by an order dated 16th December, 1993 parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding possession of the suit property. ( 4 ) IN the written statement, defendant has not disputed that the suit property was owned by Kanwal Nain Khanna who died in 1982 leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughter that plaintiff No. 1 is the wife while plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Rajinder Kumar as alleged. ( 4 ) IN the written statement, defendant has not disputed that the suit property was owned by Kanwal Nain Khanna who died in 1982 leaving behind his wife, two sons and three daughter that plaintiff No. 1 is the wife while plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Rajinder Kumar as alleged. However, it is stated that said Kanwal Nain Khanna had executed a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of his wife Smt. Ishwari Devi. Smt Ishwari Devi died on 29. 8. 84. After her death, her two sons and three daughters became the owners of the suit property In equal shares. It is denied that Kanwal Nain executed a Will where under suit property was bequeathed in favour of Rajinder Kumar and the defendant in equal shares, as alleged. It is further alleged that after the death for Smt. Ishwari Devi, her two sons and three daughters arrived at a family settlement whereunder Rajinder Kumar and the defendant paid Rs. 20,000. 00 to each of their sisters and Rajinder Kumar and three sisters gave up their right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant. Similarly, three sisters and the defendant gave up their interest in the tenancy rights of shop No. 2004, Bazar Lal Kuan together with merchandise goods lying there in favour of Rajinder Kumar. Although the family settlement was reduced into writing but it could not be got registered due to sudden death of Rajinder Kumar. It is pleaded that defendant has entered into an agreement to sell on 20. 12. 88 with Harish Kohli in respect of second floor of the suit property. There is a tenant on the ground floor. Defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit property except the ground and second floor portions of the property. ( 5 ) DEFENDANT has contested both the IAs by filing replies on the lines identical to those taken in the written statement. In reply to IA 10794/93, it is further alleged by the defendant that during his lifetime Rajinder K. idr had taken his share in the suit property and executed an undertaking that he did not claim any right or interest in the suit property. He was paid Rs. 1,20,000. 00, Rs. 10,000. 00 and Rs. 55,000. 00 by the defendant. Out of the amount of Rs. 55,000. 00 Rajinder Kumar paid Rs. 30,000. He was paid Rs. 1,20,000. 00, Rs. 10,000. 00 and Rs. 55,000. 00 by the defendant. Out of the amount of Rs. 55,000. 00 Rajinder Kumar paid Rs. 30,000. 00 to his sisters namely Smt. Ranjana, Smt. Shashi Malhotra and Smt. Urmil Malhotra in equal shares towards full and final settlement. of their claim in the suit property. All the three sisters executed relinquishment deeds relinquishing their rights in the suit property in favour of the defendant. It is further stated that the suit property was mortgaged with the Central Bank of India, parliament Street, New Delhi where Rajinder Kumar was employed and the property was got redeemed by paying Rs. 45,750. 15 by the defendant. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through! the record. ( 7 ) AS noticed above, defendant has not disputed that the suit property was owned by Kanwal Nain Khanna who died in 1982 leaving behind Smt. Ishwari Devi, Rajinder Kumar, defendant, Smt. Ranjana, Smt. Shashi Malhotra and Smt. Urmil Malhotra and plaintiff No. 1 is the wife while plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased Rajinder Kumar. In the plaint aforesaid Kanwal Nain Khanna is alleged to have executed a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of Rajinder Kumar and the defendant in equal shares. However, in the written statement it is pleaded that Kanwal Nain Khanna executed a Will in favour of his wife Smt. Ishwari Devi and after her death in 1984, Rajinder Kumar, defendant and their three sisters came to inherit the suit property in equal shares. Obviously, execution of either of these two Wills will only effect the shares of the parties in the suit property. From the case pleaded in the written statement and reply to IA 10794/93, it is manifest that in a family settlement Rajinder Kumar and three sisters relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant and the defendant and three sisters relinquished their interest in the tenancy rights of shop No. 2004, Bazar Lal Kuan in favour of Rajinder Kumar. Further, Rajinder Kumar executed an undertaking giving up his claim in the suit property in favour of the defendant. Further, Rajinder Kumar executed an undertaking giving up his claim in the suit property in favour of the defendant. It may be noticed that in the written statement itself it is stated that the alleged family settlement although reduced into writing was not registered due to sudden death of Rajinder Kumar. Alleged undertaking dated 4. 1. 89 placed on the file too is unregistered. Since the alleged family settlement and the undertaking involve the transfer of interest in immovable property, they cannot be read in evidence for want of registration. Thus, the plea raised by the defendant that deceased Rajinder Kumar did not have any interest in the suit property, needs to be investigated further. From this discussion it must follow that the plaintiff have made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction sought for. They are likely to suffer irreparable injury in case the injunction is refused. Balance of convenience also lies in their favour. ( 8 ) RESULTANTLY, in addition to making absolute the order dated 16. 12. 93, defendant is further restrained from alienating the suit property till the decision of the suit. Both the IAs are disposed of accordingly.