Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Late Zorawar Singh was the father of the appellants and the respondents. He died on January 04, 1986. The mother of the parties i.e. wife of Zorawar Singh was Ram Pyari. She died on June 18, 2009.

2. Respondent No.1 filed CS (OS) No.430/2012 alleging that both parents died intestate and since Zorawar Singh was the owner of property No.9988-C, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, the same was liable to be partitioned amongst his children. He also sought a rendition of accounts since the property was on rent. In the written statement filed, the appellants pleaded that during his lifetime Late Zorawar Singh had executed a will on June 16, 1985 and on October 21, 1995 had executed a codicil in respect of his estate and that qua the suit property the bequest was in favour of appellant No.2, with life interest in favour of the mother.

3. Vide order dated March 10, 2014 following issues were settled in CS (OS) No. 430 of 2012:-

“i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on account of concealment/suppression of material facts? If so, to what effect? OPD

ii. Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7Rule 11(a) CPC?

iii. Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC on account of deficient courts fees? OPD.

iv. Whether Late Sh. Jorawar Singh had made a valid Will and a codicil dated 16.06.1985 and 21.10.1995 respectively? If so, to what effect? OPD

v. If the answer to issue no.(iv) is in the negative whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition in respect of property bearing Municipal No.9988-C, Khasra No.1002/583/340, Sarai Rohilla, Gadodia Road, Delhi measuring 298 square yards? If so, to what effect? OPP

vi. If the answer to issue no.(v) is in the affirmative, to what share the plaintiff is entitled and the consequential relief, if any? OPP

vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum being 1/7th share of the plaintiff of the mesne profits arising out of the suit property at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum? OPP

viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction? OPP

ix. Relief.”

4. The appellants thereafter instituted CS (OS) No.3310/2012, in which they set out all the properties owned by Zorawar Singh and pleaded that under the will dated June 16, 1985, all properties save and except a plot at Kailash Park New Delhi was bequeathed by him to his wife. The plot at Kailash Park was bequeathed to the daughter Sushila Yadav. He executed a codicil on October 21, 1985, as per which the estate was bequeathed :-

(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 Prakash and Gyan Prakash (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 lifetime 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; and

(f) The vacant plot no.A-1, Kailash Park, measuring 125 sq. Yards, New Delhi was bequeathed to the plaintiff no.2. It was pleaded that the mother executed a will dated June