PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Late Bhim Sain Chawla was the owner of property bearing municipal No.C-4/171, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and on his demise on October 02, 1969 his wife Manorama Rani Chawla and four sons : Pramod Kumar Chawla, Satish Chawla, Naresh Chawla and Vinod Kumar Chawla inherited the property as his legal heirs. Succession was by intestacy. Manorama Rani Chawla died on July 07, 1999 and willed her undivided share in the property to her four sons as per will dated April 03, 1979, in respect of which the learned Single Judge has correctly opined that he need not decide on the validity of the will for the reason whether succession to the estate of Manorama Rani Chawla was testamentary or by intestacy it made no difference because under either mode of succession the four sons would equally acquire her 1/5th share in the property. Thus, the four brothers became joint owners of the property each having 1/4th undivided share thereon.

2. The appellants are the successors-in-interest, being the wife and children of Vinod Kumar Chawla.

3. The respondents : Pramod Kumar Chawla, Satish Kumar Chawla and Naresh Chawla filed a suit seeking partition of the property pleading aforesaid facts, informing in the pleadings that though Pramod Kumar Chawla and Satish Chawla (as one party) and representing the estate of Vinod Kumar, his wife Sharda Rani and son Rishi Chawla (appellants No.1 and 2 as the other party) had signed an agreement on March 20, 2007 but in the absence of Naresh Chawla signing the same, nothing turned on the agreement which purported to record the terms for an amicable separation of interest of the four brothers in the property.

4. The appellants as heirs of late Vinod Kumar predicated a claim on the said agreement, two copies whereof : Ex.PW-1/D1 and Ex.PW-1/D2 were prepared and are admitted documents between the parties.

5. The two exhibits are computer print outs and thus have identical language. The two record that Pramod Kumar Chawla, Satish Chawla and Naresh Chawla constituted the first party and Sharda Rani and her son Rishi Chawla the second party. Recording that the four sons of late Bhim Sain Chawla and Manorama Rani Chawla had equal share in the property, the agreement records that Pramod Kumar Chawla, Satish Chawla and Naresh Chawla shall, upon receiving Rs.25,00,000/- each, payment to be made on or before July 31, 2007, relinquish their 1/4th share each in the property. The five clauses containing the agreement in the two exhibits read:-

(1) That the first party will relinquish their rights, title and interest qua the above said property bearing no.4-C/171, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for which second party will pay Rs.75,00,000/- to first party (Dr. P.K. Chawla, Sh. Satish Chawla and Sh. Naresh Chawla Rs.25,00,000/- each respectively)

(2) That the second party shall make the payment on or before 31st July 2007 to the first party.

(3) That after receiving the payment the first party will not claim, file any suit towards the above said property.

(4) That if the second party will not make the payment within the stipulated time period i.e. 31st July 2007 the first party will reserve their right to take legal necessary action.

(5) That the parties hereto and their respective legal heirs shall abide by the terms and conditions of this agreement.

6. Whereas clause No.4 in Ex.PW-1/D1 has been scored off and initialed only by Satish Chawla, the entire agreement Ex.PW-1/D2 has been scored off. We simultaneously note that nothing turns on said aspect i.e. Ex.PW-1/D2 being scored off fully. The agreement do not bear the signature of Naresh Chawla.

7. Defense of the appellants in the written statement was that in view of the agreement Ex.PW-1/D1 the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as the parties had agreed that the appellants would be the owners of the entire property. It was pleaded that in spite of offering Rs.25,00,000/- each to the three plaintiffs they did not take the money.

8.