RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The suit though bears number of the year 2008 was instituted in 1991 in this court. On 20th September, 2001 the following preliminary issue was framed on the question of maintainability: “Whether in view of various preliminary objections taken by defendant No.1 in written statement to the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed?”

2. During the course of hearing on the preliminary issue on 15th December, 2005 it was felt by this court that it was necessary to direct the Supreme Court Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Niti Bagh to produce the complete file relating to plot No. B-100, Niti Bagh, New Delhi. Notice was accordingly directed to be issued to the said society. Thereafter on change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the District Court. The plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint to enhance the valuation in the plaint for pecuniary jurisdiction and upon no objection from the only contesting defendant i.e., defendant No.1 (whose legal heirs had been substituted on 5th November, 2004) the application for amendment was allowed and consequently the suit transferred back to this court. The counsel for the plaintiff and the senior counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 have been heard on two aspects of maintainability i.e., the effect of nomination under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and on the aspect of limitation. Neither of the counsels referred to the order dated 15th December, 2005 directing the society to produce the records of the property. Though the clerk from the society had appeared before this court pursuant to the notice issued on 17th February, 2006 but since the suit was on that date found to be below the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, it appears that the records sought were not perused. On none of the subsequent dates was there any direction for reappearance of the clerk from the said society or for summoning the records. After perusing the file, in my view, the said record is not necessary for pronouncing on the aspect of maintainability on which the counsels had been heard.

3. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for the reliefs of declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and injunction. It is pleaded that Malik Arjun Das was a member of the Supreme court Bar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd and in the draw of lots of the said society held on 15th December, 1971 was allotted a residential plot bearing Municipal No. 100, Block B, Niti Bagh, New Delhi; the said plot admeasures 513.40 sq yrds; that the plaintiff and the 11 defendants on the date of institution of the suit were the suit the natural heirs of Shri Malik Arjun Das who had died intestate and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 had inherited 1/6th undivided share each in the said property of Malik Arjun Das and the other defendants who were also the legal heirs of some of the original heirs of Malik Arjun Das had the remaining share in the said property; that Malik Arjun Das had desired that property B-100 Niti Bagh, New Delhi should be jointly built by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the defendant No.11,namely Shri Anand Kumar Malik; consequently after the death of Malik Arjun Das it was mutually agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 that since defendant No.11 was residing in USA and was no more interested in the aforesaid property, the property be jointly constructed for residential purposes by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1; that since the plaintiff was employed outside Delhi and was also likely to be out of India for indefinite period, the property should be constructed by the defendant No.1 on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the plaintiff, out of the monies left by Malik Arjun Das and the remaining costs of construction be shared between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1; it was further agreed that after construction, the premises be let out by defendant No.1 on his own behalf as wel