S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this suit, the plaintiff claims partition and other consequential relief. The pedigree table/Family tree, for a better understanding of the dispute is reproduced below.

Rai Bahadur Dev Singh Bisht _______________________|____________________ | | Thakur Dan Singh Bist Thakur Mohan Singh Bist | [SEPARATED ON 29-03-1956] | _________________________________ | | | Smt. Ganga Devi | Smt. Lila Wati | | | | Smt. Jagat Raj Kumari | | | | Smt. Parvati Bist | |__________________________________ Wife of Defendant No.1 | | | | | | |_____________________________________ | | | | ____________________________________________ | | | | | | | | Arjun Ajay Bisht Ashok | | | Bisht (Deft. 4) Bisht (Deft. 3) Manjula Singh | | (Deft. No.2) (Deft. 12) | | | | _____________________________________________________________| | | | | | Mrs. Neelam | | | | | | | Ms. Pushpa | | | Parihar | Katoch (Def.7) | Ms Saroj | (Deft. No.11) | | Singh (Deft. 6) | | Ms. Hemlata Jamwal (Def. 5) | | | | Mrs. Asha | Rathore | (Deceased) | | Lata Chauhan (Pltf) | _________________________ | | Sandeep Supriya (Deft. No. 8) Rathore (Deft. No.9)

2. In the present suit partition of two properties which were allegedly owned by Thakur Dan Singh Bisht who died intestate on 10.9.64 is claimed. The suit is filed by the youngest daughter of late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht seeking partition of two properties although it is being claimed that he had other properties, but those were previously partitioned. The defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 12 are contesting this suit. Defendant No. 1 died during the suit and his legal representatives are Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 12. Other defendants support the claim of the plaintiff. The defence of the contesting defendants is that one of the two properties in suit, i.e. A-20 West End Avenue, New Delhi was purchased by Defendant No. 1 out of his own funds and construction was raised by him from his own resources and, therefore, he was the absolute owner of the suit property.

3. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint was that her father late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht had acquired some immovable properties situated in Delhi, Nainital and Pithoragarh and out of those properties the property in Nainital known as 'Grassmere House' was already partitioned in equal shares amongst all his legal heirs after his death and the other two properties i.e. House No. A-20, West End, New Delhi and some land in Pithoragarh (U.P.) continued to remain joint properties. The plaintiff claims that all the parties in the suit were entitled to the properties of late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht in equal shares but since Defendant Nos. 1-4 and 12 were not agreeing to have the aforesaid two joint properties partitioned the present suit for partition etc. had to be filed.

4. The suit claim was resisted by defendant Nos. 1-4 and 12. They had filed a common written statement. Defendant No. 1 Leela Singh Bisht, as noticed already, had been impleaded in the suit being one of the legal heirs of his deceased wife Smt. Parvati Bisht, who was the deceased daughter of Late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 died and thereafter defendants 2-4 and 12 (hereafter "contesting defendants") resisted the suit claim.

5. In the common written statement which had been filed by the deceased defendant No. 1 and defendants 2-4 and 12 it was stated that the suit property, No. A-20, West End, New Delhi was exclusively owned by the first defendant Leela Singh Bisht, who purchased it same from his own funds and had also raised construction of the house with his own money. Giving the background of acquisition of the said property by first defendant, it was claimed by the contesting defendants that Late Thakur Dan Singh Bisht was a member of Diplomatic Enclave Extension Co-operative House Building Society and he had nominated his daughter Smt. Parvati Devi to succeed him to the membership. In view of that nomination Smt. Parvati Devi became the member o