1. The plaintiff has filed the above-noted suit for partition of the properties mentioned in Annexure A & B to the plaint, a declaration that the sale of the properties mentioned in Annexure C of the plaint is null and void and permanent injunction against defendants No.1 to 5 restraining them from creating any third party interests in the plaintiff’s share of the properties mentioned in Annexure A and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff of the properties mentioned in Annexure B. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are as follow:

(a) Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5, their representative, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th portion of all the property as mentioned in Annexure –A along with the plaint;

(b) Pass a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5 and their representatives, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby effecting partition of the property as mentioned Annexure -A annexed to the plaint.

(c) Pass a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5 and their representatives, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby according to the plaintiff exclusive and separate possession of the 1/6th share in the property as mentioned in Annexure –A annexed to the plaint.

(d) Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5 and their representatives, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the sole/exclusive owner of the ancestral property as mentioned in Annexure-B annexed to the plaint.

(e) Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 8 and their representatives, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby declaring that the transaction of transfer and/or sale of the agricultural land as mentioned in the Annexure-C annexed to the plaint entered into by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 8 is null and void and that the said agricultural lands/holdings constitute the part of the ancestral property of the family of the plaintiff, being liable to partition as per prayer (b);

(f) Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5 and their representatives, associates, agents and assigned etc., thereby directing the defendants to refrain from parting with the possession or creating any third party interest with respect to 1/6th portion of the property as mentioned in Annexure-A annexed to the plaint;

(g) Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5 their representatives, associates, agents and assigns thereby restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff of the ancestral property as mentioned in Annexure-B annexed to the plaint.”

2. The plaintiff has contended that he had filed a suit for partition before the Civil Judge against defendant No.1, Shri Ram Kishan, only and the Civil Judge by order dated 13th May, 1996 had dismissed the suit by observing that the suit is barred under the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and that the plaintiff is at liberty to file an appropriate suit before the appropriate court as per the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the dismissal of suit by order dated 13th May, 1996 which was allowed by the Additional District Judge by order dated 5th September, 2000 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.

3. The plaintiff has contended that he had realized that the values of the properties whose partition is being sought was in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court and therefore he had moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to fi