The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on unchallenged evidence to establish inheritance rights and entitlement to the suit property, as well as the application of relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, Hindu Succession Act, and Transfer of Property Act.

R.K. GAUBA, J:

1. This civil suit for partition and injunction (permanent and mandatory) was instituted by Rakesh Sharma son of Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma (the plaintiff) who claims to be the brother of the two defendants, they being Shri Surendra Sharma son of Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma (first defendant) and Smt. Shobha Sharma (since deceased) described as married daughter of Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma (second defendant) represented by her legal heirs, the reliefs being sought concerning third floor (along with terrace rights) of property bearing No.C-46, old number A/168, measuring 225 sq. yards, out of Khasra No.351, 352 and 353, situated in Mahendru Enclave, Village Malikpur Chhawni, G.T. Road, New Delhi-110033 (“the suit property”), more particularly described in site plan mark ‘F’, affirmed on oath by Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, inter alia, stating it to be bounded on east and west by passages, on the north by property no.A/167 and on the south by property no.A/169.

2. As per the averments in the plaint, Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, the predecessor-in-interest/father of the parties hailed from area now in Pakistan and had moved, at the time of partition of the country in 1947, from there to Delhi and had purchased property bearing No.7203, Beriwala Bagh, Pul Bangash, Delhi-110006 where he with his family including the parties herein lived till 1996. Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma statedly married Smt. Sudershan Kanta @ Sudershan Rani and out of the said wedlock, the plaintiff and the two defendants were born. The second defendant Smt. Shobha Sharma having been married in 1982 to Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and having given birth to two children, namely, Dakshit Sharma and Mansi Sharma, she (Shohba Sharma) passed away in 2003 leaving behind her husband Vijay Kuamr Sharma and the said two children Dakshit Sharma and Mansi Sharma, who are collectively shown in the array of parties as second defendants.

3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in 1995 Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma had sold off the property at Beriwala Bagh and from out of the proceeds of the said sale he had purchased the suit property, in the name of his wife Smt. Sudershan Kanta @ Sudershan Rani (mother of the parties herein), on 17.05.1996 for consideration of Rs.80,000/- from its then owner Mr. Sanjay Sharma who executed the documents in the nature of Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, for consideration, in favour of Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, which was registered as document no.16205 in volume no.3969 on pages 157 to 160; Special Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, registered as document no.16206 in volume no.3969 on pages 161 to 162 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sub-District No.1, Delhi; Affidavit affirming execution of the General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney; Agreement to Sell in favour of Smt. Sudershan Kanta duly notarized besides Will duly registered as document no. 20019 in volume no.2061 on pages 69 to 70 bequeathing the right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Smt. Sudershan Kanta; in addition to Indemnity Bond and possession letter respecting suit property in her favour and acknowledging the receipt of the said sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/-.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Sudershan Kanta, mother of the parties, in whose name the suit property was purchased by Late Shri Tilak Raj Sharma died intestate on 28.01.2002 followed by the death of Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, again intestate, on 12.02.2008. It is averred that after the demise of their parents, the three children of the erstwhile owner, i.e., plaintiff and the two defendants, are entitled to one-third share each in the suit property. The cause of action for bringing the suit was alleged to be the conduct of the first defendant who statedly had started picking fights with the plaintiff asking him to move out from the property in a portion of which he claims to be in occupation and the alleged misrepresentation about the sa