RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The purchasers from the defendant in this suit for partition of immovable property claim substitution in place of the defendant. The application is opposed by the defendant only to the extent of substitution. The defendant otherwise has no objection to the impleadment of the applicants as a party to the suit. The plaintiffs, however, oppose substitution or even impleadment of the applicants as parties.

.2. This suit for partition has been pending since 1994 and the plaintiffs and the defendant have already concluded their evidence and the suit is ripe for final arguments. The plaintiffs claimed that each of the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 and the defendant have a 1/7th share in the property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the predecessor of the parties was a member of the cooperative society which had allotted the land; that the said predecessor with the consent of all the parties transferred the said land in the name of the defendant being the eldest son so as to enable grant of government loan for house construction, the defendant being in government service. The defendant contested the suit claiming to be the sole owner of the property.

3. There was a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document