Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The dispute in the present appeal is between a son of Late Sh. Chanan Das Chopra – Prem Nath who died during pendency of the suit and his wife Santosh and two daughters Vipula and Anuradha continuing with the litigation on being substituted as his legal heirs. On the other side pitched against Prem Nath were his nephews, Arun Chopra and Vivek Chopra sons of H.L. Chopra, the brother of Prem Nath. The fight is not on the estate of Late Chanan Das Chopra. It pertains to property bearing Municipal No.D-354, Defence Colony, New Delhi which was demised in perpetuity by the L&DO to Wing Commander Maharaj Kishan Chopra, the son of Late Sh. Chanan Das Chopra i.e. the brother of Prem Nath Chopra and H.L. Chopra.

2. Prem Nath Chopra, Maharaj Kishan Chopra, Sham Lal Chopra and H.L. Chopra were brothers. Shanti Devi and Kamla Ahuja were their sisters. The genealogy tree of the family of Late Sh. Chanan Das Chopra is as under:-

Prem Nath (Plaintiff) : Santosh Chopra (wife) Vipula and Anuradha (daughters)

Maharaj Kishan : Har Kaur (wife) Shyam Lal

Chanan Das Chopra H.L. Chopra : Arun Chopra and Vivek Chopra (Sons) (Defendants No.1 and 2)

Shanti Devi : Virender and Rajan (Sons), Sudesh and Sunita (Daughters) (Defendants No.3 to 6)

Kamla Ahuja : Rosy (Son), Rita and Ruby (Daughters) (Defendants No.7 to 9)

3. On November 16, 2006 Prem Nath Chopra instituted a suit seeking partition of property bearing Municipal No.D-354, Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”) and division of movable assets of Late Sham Lal Chopra as listed in Annexures A and B to the plaint. And we need to highlight that partition of the estate of neither Maharaj Kishan nor his wife Har Kaur was prayed for.

4. Prem Nath Chopra was the plaintiff. Arun Chopra and Vivek Chopra sons of Late H.L.Chopra were impleaded as defendants No.1 and 2. Virender, Rajan, Sudesh and Sunita the children of Shanti Devi were impleaded as defendants No.3 to 6. Rosy, Rita and Ruby, the children of Kamla Ahuja were impleaded as defendants No.7 to 9. In our decision we shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit.

5. It was pleaded in the plaint that Late Wing Commander Maharaj Kishan Chopra the brother of the plaintiff was the perpetual lessee of land bearing Municipal No.D-354, Defence Colony, New Delhi who constructed a building thereon in his lifetime and that he died intestate on November 30, 1984 leaving behind his wife Har Kaur Chopra as his sole Class-I legal heir who inherited the said property. He pleaded that Har Kaur Chopra died on June 07, 1988. He pleaded that by and under a conveyance deed dated February 03, 1997 executed by L&DO the lease-hold rights were mutated in the name of only Sham Lal Chopra. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was not aware as to how the conveyance deed dated February 03, 1997 was executed by L&DO in favour of Sham Lal Chopra. He highlighted that he did not receive any information or notice from L&DO regarding execution of the said conveyance deed.

6. We need to highlight that it was categorically pleaded that Sham Lal Chopra inherited the suit property from his brother Maharaj Kishan Chopra and thus became the owner of the suit property. He pleaded that Sham Lal Chopra died intestate on October 04, 2006 leaving behind no class-I legal heir. Being class-II legal heirs of Sham Lal Chopra, he i.e. the plaintiff and the other siblings of Sham Lal Chopra viz. H.L.Chopra, Shanti Devi and Kamla Ahuja became entitled to ¼th (25%) share each in the suit property and the movables owned by Sham Lal Chopra. He pleaded that on the death of H.L. Chopra, Shanti Devi and Kamla Ahuja, their ¼th (25%) share in the suit property was inherited by their children in equal proportion. He pleaded that partition had not taken place. So pleading, he prayed that the suit property be partitioned by metes and bounds as also the movable estate of Sham Lal Chopra. Since much would turn on the pl