The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC to allow the relief claimed of partition on admissions.

1. The two plaintiffs namely Mr. Sandeep Kohli and Mr. Sheetal Kohli being the sons of late Sh. S.C. Kohli have filed this suit for partition of Shop No.81 situated in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 Mr. Vinod Kohli from alienating, encumbering, mortgaging or creating any third party rights therein. The defendants No.2&3 Smt. Namrata Wahi and Smt. Shikha Nischal are the sisters of the two plaintiffs, being daughters of Sh. S.C. Kohli.

2. The suit was entertained and while issuing summons thereof, vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 1st February, 2016, the defendant No.1 was directed to maintain status-quo qua possession and title of Shop No.81 Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs:

(i) that Sh. M.L. Kohli was the owner of Shop No.81 admeasuring 243 sq. ft. Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi vide Lease and Conveyance Deed dated 25th April, 1968 executed in his favour by the President of India;

(ii) that thought the said shop originally comprised of ground floor only and portions thereof demarcated as 81A, 81B and 81C were let out by Sh. M.L. Kohli to Mrs. Veena Chugh, Mr. Amrit Lal and Mrs. Naresh Kumari respectively but in the year 1996-1997, a basement to the property was also made and as on the date of institution of the suit, the shop comprised of basement, ground floor along with three independent shops i.e. 81A, 81B and 81C;

(iii) that the parties to this suit are some of the legal heirs of Sh. M.L. Kohli;

(iv) that after the demise of Sh. M.L. Kohli, in a settlement between all the legal heirs of Sh. M.L. Kohli, Shop No.81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi fell to the share of his sons Mr. S.C. Kohli (being the predecessor-in-interest of the two plaintiffs and defendants No.3&4) and defendant No.1 Mr. Vinod Kohli;

(v) that in accordance with the family settlement, other legal heirs of Sh. M.L. Kohli executed and registered Relinquishment Deed of their rights in the said shop as heirs of Sh. M.L. Kohli in favour of Mr. S.C. Kohli and Mr. Vinod Kohli;

(vi) that thus on the demise of Sh. M.L. Kohli and execution of Relinquishment Deed supra, Mr. S.C. Kohli, being the predecessor of the two plaintiffs and defendants No.3&4, and the defendant No.1 Mr. Vinod Kohli became owners of equal share of Shop No.81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi;

(vii) that Shop No.81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar was also substituted in the record of the Land & Development Office in the name only of Mr. S.C. Kohli and defendant No.1 Mr. Vinod Kohli;

(viii) that Mr. S.C. Kohli and defendant No.1 Mr. Vinod Kohli instituted proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the tenants from the portions 81A, 81B and 81C of the aforesaid Shop No.81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi;

(ix) that the two plaintiffs have been carrying on business from the basement portion and the defendant No.1 has been carrying on his business from the ground floor of the property;

(x) that eviction orders were passed against the tenants in Shops No.81A, 81B and 81C and possession recovered from them but the defendant No.1 Mr. Vinod Kohli only is in possession of the said shops also;

(xi) that since then, the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants No.3&4 on the one hand and the defendant No.1 on the other hand has become acrimonious, as the defendant No.1 has been attempting to usurp the portions got vacated from the tenants;

4. The defendants No.2&3 have supported the plaintiffs and filed affidavits of no objection also stating that they give up their shares in the property in favour of the two plaintiffs and do not want any share in the property.

5. The defendant No.1 has filed a written statement pleading:

(a) that in the settlement arrived at amongst all the legal heirs of Sh. M.L. Kohli, since the part of the asset of Sh. M.L. Kohli which had fallen to the share of the other legal heirs was lesser in value than