( 1 ) THAT one Shri Tola Ram, father of the parties to the suit was the owner of the property being House No. 13/28, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and 1356/57, Street No. 4, Faizganj, Bahadurgarh Road, New Delhi. Shri Tola Ram died on 6th September, 1983, leaving behind him a Will executed on 1st April 1965 by virtue of which parties to the suit were given equal shares in his properties. Besides the properties left behind by the deceased Tola Ram, the parties had also jointly purchased a property being No. 6/28, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and they had equal shares therein. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition. of the said properties on the ground that it was not possible for them to live together and they, therefore, wanted separate possession of their respective shares in the said properties.

( 2 ) THE defendant in the written statement has not denied the share of the parties either in the properties left behind by the deceased Tola Ram or in the property jointly purchased by the parties. The only plea taken in the written statement in respect of the said properties was that the defendant had from his own resources contributed much in excess of his l/3rd share. Similarly in the Faizganj property as well as in the property left behind by the deceased the defendant s case is that he had made some additions with his own funds. Besides the immovable properties, the defendant has alleged that the deceased had left behind certain movables incding deposits with the bank. It is also alleged that the First plaintiff purchased a flat being No. 5, B-16, Bhagwan Das Nagar, New Delhi with the joint funds of the parties and a shop on the first floor at 138/7, Tilak Bazar, near Khari Baoli was also purchased in the same manner allegedly usurping the assets of the joint family,

( 3 ) THAT on 2nd March, 1993 when the suit came up for hearing before the Court the parlies agreed to have a local commissioner appointed to suggest the mode of partition of the properties of late Shri Tola Ram in accordance with the Will. At the time of passing of this order no objection was raised by any of the parties about their share in the properties. The local commissioner after hearing the parties filed his report on 28th April, 1994 suggesting the mode of partition of the two properties mentioned in the Will of the deceased Tola Ram as also the property being No. l3/28, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi which was purchased jointly by the parties. The partition had been suggested considering the share of the parties to be equal in all the said properties.

( 4 ) THE objections to the report of the local commissioner were filed by the defendant. One of the objection taken was that this Court had directed the local commissioner to suggest the mode of partition in regard to the properties left behind by late Shri Tola Ram which were the subject matter of Will, however, the local commissioner had also suggested the mode of partition of the property being No. l3/28 which was not the subject matter of Will and as such the report was stated to be beyond the jurisdiction of the local commissioner. Certain other objections to the report of the local commissioner were also taken, however, no objection was at any time taken by the defendant to the effect that the order dated 2nd March 1993 was not the preliminary decree.

( 5 ) BY this order I am disposing of these objections of the defendant in I. A. 870/95 and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the objections being I. A. 871/95. By this order, I am also disposing of the applications of the plaintiffs being I. A. 6832/93 for injunction in respect of the property being No. 6/28, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and also the applications of the defendant being I. A. 661/95 and I. A. 11114/95. In I. A. 661/95, the plaintiff seeks an order of the Court to decide the insanity of the plaintiff No. 2 and also seeks a decision to include other properti