S. Mukerjee ( 1 ) THE present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction. The brief facts of the case are as under:- ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 (a sole proprietor firm run by shri Vikram Kumar) is a Builder/developer of property bearing No. B-111 Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and the present defendant is the elder brother of the proprietor, shri Vikram Kumar. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid property bearing No. B-III, greater Kailash, New Delhi was earlier owned by one Shri puran Singh Sethi by virtue of a Sale Deed dated March 19,1965 from the original allottee M/s. Gaja Nand Hari shankar. ( 4 ) THE Plaintiff No. 1 had entered into a collaboration Agreement dated 23rd September (Exh. P/1) for the construction of a building on the aforesaid property, with one Shri Puran Singh Sethi, and the plaintiff s case is say that on the same day, a General power of Attorney and Will (Exh. P/2-P/3), was also executed by Shri Puran Singh Sethi in his favour. ( 5 ) IN terms of the aforesaid Collaboration agreement, a sum of Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven lakhs Only), was to be paid to the said Shri Puran Singh sethi alongwith the entire basement and ground floor as his share of the afore-said property to be constructed by the Plaintiff No. 1. ( 6 ) IT was contended that the essence of the collaboration Agreement between the Plaintiff No. 1 and shri Puran Singh Sethi was that the Plaintiff No. 1 would construct on the said plot a residential building comprising of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor, and second Floor and therefrom in consideration of the plaintiff No. 1 s enterprise, effort and investment, the said Plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire space on the First and Second Floor of the said building. ( 7 ) IN other words, upon completion of the construction the Plaintiff No. 1 would become the absolute owner of the said space on the First and Second Floor of plot bearing No. B-111, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and would be entitled to possession of the same. ( 8 ) IT is also contended that Shri Puran Singh Sethi had earlier taken a loan of Rs. ( 8 ) IT is also contended that Shri Puran Singh Sethi had earlier taken a loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen Lakh Only) from Indian Bank, Connaught Circus, new Delhi against the security of the aforesaid plot and executed a Deed of Mbrtgage in respect thereof. The said loan was repaid and consequently the mortgaged property, being B-111, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, stands redeemed from the mortgage after the. institution of the suit. ( 9 ) IT was submitted by the Plaintiff No. 1 that by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 1. 10. 99 which is exh. P/4, the plaintiff No. 1 agreed to sell to the plaintiff No. 2 the Second Floor Flat (Rear), having 4 bedrooms attached toilets, drawing/dining, kitchen etc. having a covered area of about 2400 sq. ft and one servant quarter on the top terrace with common toilets bath and two Nos. Car parking on the plot bearing No. B-111, greater Kailash, New Delhi, for a total consideration of rs. 28,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Only ). ( 10 ) THE Plaintiff No. 2 paid the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) under the aforesaid Agreement to sell, to the Plaintiff No. 1 and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) was to be paid by the Plaintiff No. 2 to Plaintiff no. 1 within a period of six months from the date of execution of the Agreement to sell dated 1st October 1999, failing which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) would stand forfeited and possession to be restored back. ( 11 ) IT was further submitted that on October, 10,1999, the possession was handed over to the Plaintiff no. 2 by the sole proprietor of Plaintiff No. 1, in the morning of the day, being the first day of the commencement of Navratra. It was also submitted that plaintiff No. 2 at around 4. 00 p. m. in the afternoon called up plaintiff No. 1, and informed him that just when the Plaintiff No. 2 was performing "havana" (Griha Pravesh ceremony), the defendant stormed into the said property and started creating a scene by yelling and shouting at the Plaintiff No. 2 and his family members for having illegally trespassed into his property. 00 p. m. in the afternoon called up plaintiff No. 1, and informed him that just when the Plaintiff No. 2 was performing "havana" (Griha Pravesh ceremony), the defendant stormed into the said property and started creating a scene by yelling and shouting at the Plaintiff No. 2 and his family members for having illegally trespassed into his property. ( 12 ) IT is contended that the defendant, with a view to cause embarrassment to the Plaintiff No. 1, and to extract money from him, created a scene inviting the attention of the neighbourhood and thus created problems and caused tremendous hardship, embarrassment and tension to the aforesaid plaintiffs also by calling local police. ( 13 ) DESPITE efforts, the defendant did not relent, and thus the Plaintiff No. 2 and his family spent hours in agony tolerating the hinderances so caused by the said defendant. ( 14 ) IT is further submitted that the Plaintiff No. 1 is now scared that the defendant would use his money power and strength to hire local goondas to harass the plaintiffs to extort some money out of them, as defendant has allegedly threatened to come back with greater force and strength and vowed that he would take forcible possession, at any cost. ( 15 ) IT was thus contended that there is an imminent danger of the Defendant acting illegally using local goondas, and causing further embarrassment and tension in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the said property by the Plaintiff No. 2 which has been sold to him by the plaintiff No. 1, since him as Plaintiff No. 1 has absolute right, title and interest in the said portions of the property viz in respect of First and Second floor, and is fully competent to pass on the same legally to any third party, without any hindrance from any other person. ( 16 ) THE defendant though duly served, however failed to appear or file his Written Statement and/or otherwise defend the present suit. ( 17 ) THE defendant was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16. 08. 2002. ( 18 ) THE matter was heard and the judgement was reserved on 24. 09. 2002 after affidavit by way of evidence had come on record. During this period also their was no step/action by defendants towards defending this suit. ( 17 ) THE defendant was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16. 08. 2002. ( 18 ) THE matter was heard and the judgement was reserved on 24. 09. 2002 after affidavit by way of evidence had come on record. During this period also their was no step/action by defendants towards defending this suit. As such, all the pleadings and documents filed by the plaintiff, have gone unrebutted. ( 19 ) THE plaintiff have duly established vide Ex P-1, p-2 and P-4, their right to peaceful ownership and enjoyment of the property being Second Floor (Rear) flat as described in detail hereinabove. The defendant having divested himself to the extent of the rights given away pursuant to collaboration agreement, has no surviving right, title or interest or locus standi to disturb the rights or possession of plaintiff No. 2 except after adhering to due process of law. ( 20 ) I find all ingredients for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. ( 21 ) IN view of the above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for grant of Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, his agents, servants, assigns and nominees from taking forcible possession of the property situated on the Second Floor (Rear) of plot bearing No. B - 111, Greater Kailash, Part - I, New Delhi except by and in accordance with due process of law. The defendant shall also stand as retrained from causing any nuisance or harassment to the plaintiff No. 2 in relation to defendant No. 2 s occupation of the said property. ( 22 ) THE suit is decreed accordingly with costs.