The main legal point established is the interpretation of the sale deed and the evidence to establish joint ownership of the suit property.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against the defendants.

2. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are step brothers of plaintiff. Disputes between the parties relate to property bearing no. C-47 and C-48, Jangpura (B), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). As per the registered sale deed dated 3rd March, 1964, the suit property stands in the name of Shahid Khalil and Zahid Khalil. Shahid Khalil and Zahid Khalil are the joint owners of the suit property by virtue of the aforementioned sale deed. Defendant no. 3 is a tenant in the suit property.

3. Case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that he along with defendant no. 1 is joint owner of the suit property. Defendant no. 2, in order to grab the suit property, started asserting that he was also known as Shahid Khalil and that the suit property is jointly owned by him and his brother, defendant no. 1. Father of the plaintiff, under the influence of his second wife, also joined defendants no.1 and 2 in claiming that the suit property belonged to defendant nos. 1 and 2. In order to achieve their this objective, defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 1475/1991 in the court of Sub Judge, Delhi against defendant no. 3. The said suit was filed by defendant no. 2 as “Shahid Khalil”. When plaintiff came to know about this fact, he filed an application for his impleadment in the said suit on the ground that he was the joint owner of the suit property. However, learned Sub Judge, vide order dated 10th March, 1998, held that the suit being against the tenant (defendant no.3) could not have been converted into a partition suit, consequently, his application was dismissed. In view of ill designs of defendant nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with their father, to grab the property, plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit seeking declaration that he, being “Shahid Khalil”, was the joint owner of the suit property along with defendant no.1, “Zahid Khalil”, as also to seek partition of the suit property besides permanent injunction against the defendants that they shall not interfere in plaintiff”s peaceful enjoyment of the suit property as also a decree of rendition of accounts in respect of the rents realized from defendant no. 3.

4. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed a composite written statement; whereas defendant no. 3 has filed separate written statement. In their written statement, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have claimed that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit as he was not having any right, title or interest in the suit property and that the plaintiff had not come to Court with clean hands. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 claim that the suit property was purchased by their maternal grandmother, namely Smt. Musharaf Jahan Begum, in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2. Their maternal grandmother used to call Hamid Khalil (defendant no. 2) as “Shahid Khalil”. Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property nor did he deal with the same in any manner whatsoever. Suit property was being maintained by defendant no. 2 in association with defendant no. 1. It was denied that defendant nos. 1 and 2, in conspiracy with their father, tried to grab the suit property. It was asserted that the property was purchased in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2 by their maternal grandmother Smt. Musharaf Jahan Begum. Thus, they were joint owners of the suit property.

5. Defendant no.3, in his written statement, admitted that he was occupying the suit property as a tenant. It was alleged that defendant no. 2 never dealt with defendant no. 3 with regard to suit property. It is only defendant no. 1, who had been approaching the defendant no. 3 for collecting the rent. It was stated that in the civil suit defendant no. 1 did not disclose that defendant no. 2 was also known as “Shahid Khalil”. As per defendant no. 3, after the disposal of application of the plaintiff, he had