Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

The plaintiff instituted this suit for partition of property No. C-1/6, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and for ancillary reliefs pleading:

(i) That the plaintiff and six defendants are the daughters and sons of Late Sh. Jugal Kishore Taneja.

(ii) That Sh. Jugal Kishore Taneja died intestate on 27th February, 1997 leaving the plaintiff and the six defendants as his only legal heirs.

(iii) That during his lifetime, Sh. Jugal Kishore Taneja acquired property No. C-1/6, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 and on demise of Sh. Jugal Kishore Taneja, the plaintiff being one of his seven legal heirs became 1/7th owner of the property.

(iv) That the plaintiff is in occupation of and residing on the second floor of the property.

(v) That partition though claimed has been denied.

2. The suit was entertained and vide ex parte order dated 20th June, 2008, status quo was required to be maintained with respect to the property.

3. The defendants no.1&2 filed a joint written statement (amended) pleading:

(i) That the plaintiff has not included all the assets left by the deceased and the suit for partition in regard to part of the estate cannot be entertained.

(ii) That the deceased father has also left behind land measuring 1.0 and 4.14 situated in the Revenue Estate of village Molarband, New Delhi purchased by him vide Sale Deed dated 25th April, 1986 and the said property was mutated in the revenue records in the name of the father of the parties.

(iii) That the plaintiff has also not mentioned the 600 shares purchased by the father of Dena Bank as well as 560 shares including bonus shares of Satnam Overseas Ltd.

(iv) That the defendant no.3 Sh. Vinod Kumar Taneja surrendered his share of the property in favour of defendants no.1&2 and admitted defendants no.1&2 to be the owner of his share; the defendants no.1&2 therefore have right over the share of the defendant no.3.

(v) That the defendants no.1&2 have deposited Rs.2,88,015/- with the House Tax Department and the plaintiff is liable to pay proportionately the said amount if found to have a share in the property.

(vi) That the defendants no.1&2 have also incurred an amount of Rs.73,210/- and Rs.10,000/- in obtaining Letters of Administration.

(vii) That the defendants no.1&2 have been granted Letters of Administration of the estate of the father with the consent of other heirs and have thus become the owner of the property.

(viii) That the defendants no.1&2 had also incurred medical expenses of Rs.3,04,000/- for medical treatment of the father and the plaintiff and the other defendants if claim any right in the property have to bear their share of the said expense also.

(ix) That the plaintiff has left his right in the property in favour of defendants no.1&2 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- out of which the plaintiff has received sum of Rs.4,25,000/- in cash between the years 1997 to 2003 and has executed an agreement dated 20th February, 2003 in this regard acknowledging the rights of the defendants no.1&2 in the property.

(x) That the plaintiff has thus not been left with any rights in the property to be able to seek partition.

(xi) That the defendants no.1&2 also in the year 2003 spent Rs.1,00,000/- and in the year 2007 Rs.60,000/- on the medical treatment of the plaintiff and his wife.

(xii) That the defendants no.1&2 permitted the plaintiff to live on the second floor as licensee and the remaining portion of the second floor is with the defendants no.1&2.

4. No replication is found to have been filed to the written statement aforesaid.

5. The defendant no.3 also filed a written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff for partition and asserting his 1/7th rights in the property.

6. No written statement is found to have been filed on behalf of defendants no.4 to 6.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff as well as the counsel for the defendant no.3 however state that they