( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of the aforesaid IAs filed in Suit no. 2167/1993.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of these applications, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff, since deceased and now represented by LR (originally defendant No. 3), has filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property No. 3, South End Road, New delhi, which was left behind by his sister, deceased late Avinash Kaur. The deceased plaintiff Ajit Singh, defendant No. 1 Adarsh Kaur Gill and defendant surjit Kaur Gill (now impleaded as plaintiff), were brother and sisters of deceased late Avinash Kaur. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of defendant No. 1 Adarsh Kaur Gill and the defendant No. 3 Gurinder Singh Gill is a nephew of late Avinash Kaur. An unmarried son of deceased Avinash Kaur named kamal Kishore Bindal was also impleaded as a defendant initially but during the pendency of the suit, he died leaving behind no LRs.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, late Avinash Kaur had married one Seth Shiv prasad in the year 1953. Late Kamal Kishore Bindal was the son of Seth Shiv prasad from late Avinash Kaur, who had seven other sons also from his first wife. Seth Shiv Prasad was a rich man. He transferred lot of moveable and immovable properties in favour of Late Avinash Kaur. From the amounts gifted by him, late Avinash Kaur purchased the suit property in January, 1956. According to the plaintiff, late Avinash Kaur expired leaving behind a registered will dated 6. 2. 1973 and a Codicil according to which all her movable and immovable properties including the suit property were to devolve upon the parties to the suit. It is also pleaded that late Avinash Kaur was in exclusive possession and was residing in the suit property and had even let out the said property to Vietnam Embassy. She had earlier rented out a part of the said property, i. e. , Guest House to Lord Krishna Sugar Mills also vide a Lease Deed dated 14. 12. 1956.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that the sons of Seth Shiv Prasaci, from his first wife, came in complete control of the business of Seth Shiv Prasad after his death in May, 1957 and thereafter, they tried to obtain certain documents from late Adarsh kaur with a view to oust her from the estate of Seth Shiv Prasad. In view of the threats from her step sons, late Avinash Kaur raised first floor of the suit property so as to generate some income and for this purpose, she mortgaged the property in favour of Smt, Sushila Daftari and Anil Daftari in the year 1959 and took a loan of Rs. 1,98,000/- from them. After getting this loan, Avinash kaur carried out renovations and constructions in the suit property but could not raise first floor for various reasons. She, however, remained in possession of the said property. While she was contemplating to raise construction in the property, she received an attachment notice from Income Tax authorities, which was for over Rs. 23 lacs. Late Avinash Kaur got upset on account of the attachment of the property and as such, contemplated to show letting of the said property in the names of her sisters Adarsh Kaur Gill and Surjit Kaur Gill. They made statements even before the Recovery Officer that they were tenants in the said property. However, later on, late Avinash Kaur created tenancy in favour of defendant No. 1 only but the underlying idea was to defeat the attachment as well as claims of her step-sons over the said property. Details of various problems being faced by late Adarsh Kaur were given in the suit and it was pleaded that the tenancy in the name of defendant No. 1 Adarsh Kaur was fake and late Avinash Kaur always remained in possession thereof and she had let out the said property to Vietnam Embassy. It was also pleaded that in october, 1963, when the suit property was in occupation of Vietnam Embassy under the Lease and Licence Agreement, late Avinash Kaur entered into an agreement for the sale of the said propert