S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The present common judgment and order will dispose off three appeals preferred by the unsuccessful first defendant against an order of the learned Single Judge, in C.S. (O.S.) 980/2009. The impugned order of 12.11.2010 dismissed the appellant's application for rejection of the suit instituted by the first four respondents. The impugned order had also allowed an application preferred by the said respondents under Order 40, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and appointed a receiver in respect of the two suit properties in question.

2. The respondents in these appeals (plaintiffs in the suit) are daughters of the late Shri Rajendra Vikram Singh. In the suit, they claimed partition of two properties: B-10, West End, New Delhi and a commercial property, No. 510, Suryakiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The latter was purchased from the sixth defendant. The West End property, claim the plaintiffs, was joint family property owned by their father and his brother, the late Shri Jaswant Singh. The appellant herein (the first defendant in the suit), Shri Jaswinder Singh is the son of the late Shri Jaswant Singh. The second defendant, Ms. Surinder Kaur is the widow of the late Shri Jaswant Singh. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are daughters of the late Shri Jaswant Singh. The sixth defendant, Ansal Properties sold (or agreed to sell) the commercial property, at 510, Suryakiran Building. The seventh defendant is the tenant in occupation of the rear half portion of the West End property; the eighth defendant on the other hand is tenant in occupation of the commercial property at Suryakiran Building.

3. The plaintiffs claimed that their father was a joint owner of the West End property and two separate buildings were constructed on the said plot. The front portion of the building belonged to the late Shri Jaswant Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the first to fifth defendants; the rear portion of the building facing the South End side belonged to the father of the plaintiffs (which is presently under the occupation of a tenant paying rent to the first defendant). Similarly, the property -Surya Kiran Building is under tenancy. The plaintiffs' father had settled in the United States of America and died on 02.01.2001 in India. Here, the plaintiffs allege that their father made an unregistered Will dated 05.12.2000 and bequeathed all immovable properties to them, and that in any event, even if the Will is not taken into consideration, the property passed to them by operation of law and succession. The plaintiffs have also disclosed that they had earlier filed a suit (C.S. (O.S.) 1207/2001) claiming half ownership of the West End property, but that suit was rejected for non-payment of the requisite court fees.

4. The appellant contested the suit arguing that the plaintiffs' father had bequeathed the immovable properties by Will dated 05.12.2000 to him as his (i.e. the testator's) daughters were settled permanently in the U.S.A. The appellant was the testator's nephew, and thus claimed that the bequest was made in his favour out of natural love and affection. He also alleged that the West End property was mutated in his favour on the basis of the Will, and accordingly, it was let out by him to the tenant for a monthly rental of Rs.6/7 lakhs. The appellant likewise alleged that the late Rajendra Vikram Singh by the same Will bequeathed the Surya Kiran commercial property exclusively to him, and consequently, he applied to the sixth defendant for mutation of the property, and thus, got the Agreement to Sell endorsed in favour of his wife and daughter.

5. The material portions of the appellant's pleas, which were also urged in his unsuccessful application for rejection of the plaint, are extracted below:

"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

10. That the instant suit is hit by the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC in as much as the dismissal of the earlier civil suit, namely CS (OS) 1207/ 01, on the sam