Vipin Sanghi, J.

I.A. No. 9419/2016

Learned counsel for the Investigating Officer (IO) states that due to inadvertence, the IO had sent the Will and the Codicil to the CFSL for obtaining a second report since the first report was not conclusive. He submits that the original Will have since been received from the CFSL and have already been placed on record.

2. In view of the said position, no further orders are called for in the present application. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 14607/2015

3. This application has been filed by the defendants to seek rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed for seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction premised on an unregistered Will and Codicil is not maintainable and is hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as well as Section 213 of the Succession Act.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to seek the following reliefs:

"A. A decree of declaration of ownership rights in favour of the plaintiffs qua the properties under the respective possession as following:

a. Ownership rights to the extent of ¼th share each in the new house built in the native village Aasiaki, Panchoor, District Rewari (Haryana) along with the building and tube well in favour of the plaintiffs herein.

b. Ownership rights in the property number 9988-C at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff number 2.

c. Ownership rights in the properties no. 321/2ZA and 321/2ZA-1 at Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi-110005 in favour of the plaintiff no. 2.

d. Ownership rights in the property no. A-1 Kailash Park, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff no.2.

B. A decree of permanent and perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants from attempting to dispossess the plaintiffs from the properties in their respective possession."

5. The said reliefs are premised on the averments that one Zorawar Singh was the owner of the several properties enlisted in paragraph 2 of the plaint, which he acquired from his own resources. He expired on 04.01.1984. The said Zorawar Singh is the father of the parties. The plaintiffs claim that Zorawar Singh bequeathed his self-acquired properties to his spouse late Smt. Ram Pyari Yadav and the parties to the suit in terms of his Will dated 16.06.1985 executed at Delhi.

6. The plaintiffs further claim that the said Will was modified by the Codicil executed by late Sh. Zorawar Singh on 21.10.1985 at Delhi. The plaintiffs in paragraph 5 set out the devolution of the properties of late Sh. Zorawar Singh in terms of the Will and the Codicil in the following manner:

"a. The agricultural land approximately measuring 30 acres acquired out of his own personal resources during his lifetime and situated in the native village at Aasiaki, Panchoor, District Riwari (Haryana) came to the share of his two sons Braham Parkash and Gyan Parkash (Defendants no.3 & 4) who have been in possession of the same and have been using it for agricultural purposes.

b. The new house built in his native village along with the building and tube well came to the share of his wife Late Smt. Ram Payari Yadav during her life time and thereafter all his four sons, the plaintiffs and the defendants 3-4 herein.

c. The ancestral agricultural land and the old house in the village came to the share of all the parties herein in equal share.

d. The property number 9988-C at New Rohtak Road, New Delhi was to vest in his wife Smt. Ram Pyari Yadav during her lifetime and was to vest thereafter in the plaintiff number 2.

e. The properties bearing number 321/2ZA and 321/2ZA-1 measuring 375 sq yds at Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi-110005 were bequeathed to his wife, late Smt. Ram Pyari Yadav with exclusive ownership rights.

f. The vacant plot no. A-1 Kailash Park, measuring 125 sq yards, New Delhi was bequeathed to the plaintiff no.2."

7. The plaintiffs claims in paragraph 7 of the plaint that they have been using their respective shares in the properties left by late