SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) SHRIMATI Sushila Goel and her husband Shri Sat Narayan Goel filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against the sole defendant in respect of property No. E-5/5, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. The suit was contested by the defendant as the plaintiffs were originally claiming more than half of the share in the suit property. On 22. 8. 2000, the plaintiffs and the defendant appeared in person and agreed that the said suit property be divided equally between the parties. It appears that despite the same, no final settlement could be recorded. This resulted in issues being framed on 11. 5. 2005 and the suit was set down for trial. Trial has not concluded.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 2 passed away on 6. 12. 2005 and this fact is noticed in the order dated 12. 1. 2006. However, no formal application to bring on record the legal heirs of plaintiff No. 2 was filed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that deceased plaintiff No. 2 is survived only by plaintiff No. 1 and their adopted child and in terms of a Will of late plaintiff No. 2, plaintiff No. 1 is the sole beneficiary. It is stated that, thus, plaintiff No. 2, needs to be deleted from the array of parties with plaintiff No. 1 becoming the sole plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the adopted son of the plaintiff Mr. Ashish Goel does not contest the Will and is agreeable to the devolution of the share of plaintiff No. 2 on plaintiff No. 1 to which effect he will file the necessary affidavit within a week.

( 3 ) THE original plaintiff No. 1, now the sole plaintiff, and the defendant are present in Court and reiterate that they are agreeable to the division of the suit property in two equal shares of 50 per cent each and the parties give up their claim for a larger share.

( 4 ) THE parties have filed in Court today a site plan, which is exhibited as exhibit 'x' which is duly signed by both the parties. The ground floor of the property is to be divided in two equal shares from point 'a' to 'a'. The ground floor is not to be divided in a straight line because portion marked as 'i' goes to the share of the defendant while portion marked as 'ii' goes to the share of the plaintiff. The defendant needs certain access and that is why in the front portion, the line is giving excess area to the defendant but the line is narrow in the back portion so as to compensate the plaintiff for difference in the area. The object is to have clear access for the defendant as also to provide a passage to the plaintiff in the back portion.

( 5 ) IT is agreed that Mr. Y. D. Nagar, Advocate, 347, Lawyers' Chamber, Delhi High court, New Delhi (Mobile No. 9810550910) who is also a qualified Engineer should be appointed as the Local Commissioner to visit the premises so as to ensure that a wall is built accordingly dividing the ground floor. The Local commissioner is to ensure that the areas falling to the respective two parties is in equal share of 50 per cent each with the option of a difference in area up to the extent of 2 per cent each. This is so provided so that the Local commissioner can at site find out a convenient place for building the wall and both the parties agree that they will not object to any differential of area up to the extent of 2 per cent each. The first floor will also be divided by building a wall in between so as to give 50 per cent each to both the parties and the wall will be built under the supervision of the Local Commissioner.

( 6 ) THE Local Commissioner to make the initial visit to the suit premises on 12. 5. 2007 at 11:00 a. m. The fee of the Local Commissioner shall be Rs. 25,000/-apart from out of pocket expenses to be borne equally by both the parties and apart from other expenses for construction of the wall.

( 7 ) THE parties have signed both exhibit 'x' and the order sheet in token of their acceptance and are duly identified by their counsels.

( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, a decree of partit