IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In a suit filed for partition, courts must endeavour to comprehensively adjudicate and decide right entitlement and share of parties in same proceeding and must avoid multiplicity of proceedings or relegating parties to a fresh round of litigation.
(2) Judgment on admission – To constitute a valid admission in pleading, admission should be unequivocal, unconditional, and unambiguous and must be made with intention to be bound by it.

JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

1. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in C.S. (O.S.) No. 701/2021 are the Appellants, and the Civil Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2022 in RFA (O.S.) No. 15/2022, on the file of the High Court of Delhi.

2. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, in the Appeal, filed the subject suit for partition, separate possession, and permanent injunction, concerning Property admeasuring about 471 square yards, together with the built-up area of a house described as D – 897, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025,¹[Suit Property.].

3. For convenience, the parties are adverted to as arrayed in the Original Suit.

AVERMENTS IN THE PLAINT

4. It is averred that Sheila Kapila was the sole and absolute owner of the Suit Property. On 08.04.2003, Sheila Kapila died, and her husband, the late Sh. P.K. Kapila pre-deceased her on 15.02.1994. Sheila Kapila was practising the Hindu religion and died intestate. The parties claim to be governed by Hindu Law. To appreciate the inter se relationship between the parties and the claims/counterclaims for partition of the Suit Property, the genealogy of the parties is noted hereinunder :

5. Therefore, the succession or inheritance to the Suit Property is governed by the principles of intestate succession applicable to a Hindu woman. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are the grandchildren of Sheila Kapila through Mrs. Sudha Panda, who is the first daughter of Sheila Kapila. Mrs. Sudha Panda died on 10.11.2019. The Plaintiffs claim one-fourth right in the Suit Property as co-owners and hence, have filed the Suit for partition, separate possession, etc. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughter and son of the Late Sheila Kapila, respectively. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are the daughters of late Dr. Rajendra Kapila, through his first wife, Mrs. Bina Kapila, and are also the grandchildren of Sheila Kapila. On 21.15.2008, the marriage between Dr. Rajendra Kapila and Mrs. Bina Kapila stood dissolved. On 14.02.2009, the marriage between Dr. Rajendra Kapila and Dr. Deepti Saxena/ Defendant No. 3 was solemnized. On 28.04.2021, Dr. Rajendra Kapila died. Hence, the Plaintiffs in the array of parties included Defendant No. 3 and also Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 as party Defendants to the Suit.

5.1 The Plaintiffs aver that the Suit Property is inherited by the four children of Sheila Kapila and therefore, at the foremost, the Suit Property is partitioned into four equal shares, allotted one such share individually to the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The share of Dr. Rajendra Kapila is deposited in the Court till a final decision on intestate disputes between Defendant No. 3 on one hand, and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 on the other hand, are adjudicated by a separate legal proceeding.

5.2 The Plaintiffs claim a share in the Suit Property as co-sharers/joint owners on the principle of devolution. The averments essential for disposing of the Appeal are adverted to. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, through their mother, Mrs. Bina Kapila, have sent threatening and intimidating communication to Plaintiff No. 1, claiming an undetermined share in the Suit Property through e-mail. Defendant No. 4 alleged that the Late Sheila Kapila left behind a Will providing for succession to the Suit Property. In other words, Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 claim that the Suit Property is divided and enjoyed as per the last Will of Late Sheila Kapila. The Plaintiffs deny the existence of the Will said to have been executed by their grandmother. The Plaintiffs, Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are together in their pleas on the presence of the Will alleged to have been executed by Sheila Kapila. Therefore, the Plaintiffs, Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, claim intestate succession to the Suit Property.

5.3 The Plaintiffs deny the copy/photograph of the Will of Late Sheila Kapila, communicated by the Advocate of Defendant No. 4. The alleged original Will of Sheila K