VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This appeal is on the Regular Board of this Court since 02.02.2012, i.e. for about a month. At the request made on behalf of the appellants on 28.02.2012, this case was listed for today. Today, counsel appears for the appellant. On behalf of the respondents, counsel appears for respondent No. 4. For over one hour, I have been very patiently trying to hear the case. The counsel for the appellants, almost inaudibly argues, but, is unable to argue the appeal as he is not prepared. He has no reference of the trial Court record and in fact, the record with him is against the affidavits by way of evidence filed in the trial Court. Various arguments urged on behalf of the counsel for the appellant in fact amount to misleading the Court because it is against the trial Court record. The proxy counsel, who appears for respondent No. 4 said that the main counsel is coming, however, inspite of waiting for over 45 minutes, the counsel has also not appeared.

2. I am constrained to note that in these old regular matters, the Court receives on many occasions, almost nil assistance from the advocates who simply casually walk in the Court without the requisite preparation.

3. I know, the Court is required to have patience, however, what should be the limit of the patience with respect to the advocates in the present case I am at loss to understand.

4. The counsel for both the parties have only stood before me for about 45 minutes and I have in the meanwhile perused the record and on the basis of the record, and without any assistance from either of the counsel, I am disposing the present appeal.

5. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 14.11.2003, dismissing the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits filed with respect to the share of one brother-Sh. Hari Mohan Bhatnagar which he inherited in the suit property from the mother-Smt. Kishan Devi. The property is a property measuring 162 sq.yds. built up to the first floor bearing No. 8/51 (old) and 8/43 (new) situated at Mohalla Kesari, Jain Mandir Street, Shahdra, Delhi.

6. The facts as alleged in the plaint are that that suit property was owned by the mother-Smt. Kishan Devi. Smt. Kishan Devi was the mother of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and of the defendant Nos. 6 & 7. Smt. Kishan Devi died intestate on 18.8.1974 leaving behind four son, namely, Sh. Shyam Sunder, Sh. Mahesh Sarup, Sh. Onkar Sarup and Sh. Hari Mohan and four daughters, namely, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Kanti Devi and Smt. Shanti Devi. It was pleaded that each of the sons and daughters of late Smt. Kishan Devi inherited 1/8th share in the undivided property bearing No. 8/43. In the plaint, it was further pleaded that two sisters, Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Smt. Sushila Rani Manjal, relinquished their 1/8th share in the property in favour of their brothers, Sh. Mahesh Sarup Bhatnagar and Sh. Hari Mohan Bhatnagar under a relinquishment deed dated 22.7.1988. It was pleaded that the deceased brother-Sh. Hari Mohan Bhatnagar was a bachelor living alone in the suit property. SinceSh. Hari Mohan Bhagnagar was a bachelor and therefore, he was issueless and had died intestate on 22.4.1994, his share which totalled to 3/8th share (originally his 1/8th share and thereafter, the shares derived by way of relinquishment from the two sisters-Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Sushila Rani) has to devolve upon the surviving brothers and sisters in equal shares as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendant No. 1 was pleaded to be a maid servant of Sh. Hari Mohan Sarup Bhatnagar and the defendant No. 4/respondent No. 4 was the son of the defendant No. 1. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 was helping the deceased brother-Sh. Hari Mohan Bhatnagar with respect to his tea shop which he was running. It was pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are in illegal occupati