1. The three plaintiffs, namely (i) Dev Chander Sood; (ii) Pradeep Sood; and, (iii) Pramod Sood instituted this suit for partition and injunction against five defendants namely (a) H.L. Sud; (b) Swatantra Prakash Sud; (c) Ashish Sud; (d) Lalit Sood; and, (e) Neelam Gajri.

2. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.4 Lalit Sood died and had been substituted by his wife and two daughters namely (i) Geeta Sood; (ii) Sanya Sood; and, (iii) Anika Sood. The plaint was permitted to be amended during the pendency of the suit, according to the plaintiffs, to enable the plaintiffs to also claim the reliefs with respect to the gift deeds with respect to the immoveable property subject matter of the suit executed by the defendant No.1, as disclosed in the written statement, advance copy of which was furnished to the counsel for the plaintiffs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, as per the amended plaint dated 28th January, 2012, is (i) that dwelling house No.E-2, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi belongs to the members of undivided family originally headed by Kishori Lal till his demise on 13th April, 1978 and thereafter by the defendant No.1 as Karta; (ii) that Kishori Lal had two sons namely the defendant No.1 H.L. sud and Ram Chander; (iii) that Ram Chander pre-deceased Kishori Lal and was not married; (iv) that plaintiff No.1 Dev Chander Sood, defendant No.2 Swatantra Prakash Sud and deceased defendant No.4 Lalit Sood are the sons of defendant No.1 H.L. Sud and the defendant No.5 Neelam Gajri is the daughter of defendant No.1 H.L. Sud; (v) that the plaintiffs No.2&3 Pradeep Sood and Pramod Sood are the sons of plaintiff No.1 Dev Chander Sood and defendant No.3 Ashish Sud is the son of defendant No.2 Swantantra Prakash Sud; (vi) that House No.E-2, South Extension Part-I was purchased for the benefit of the family; therefore sale deed was got executed in the name of defendant No.1; after the plot was purchased, a single storey house was constructed in the year 1961 and first and second floors were added in 1975-76; (vii) that the plaintiffs also contributed towards the cost of construction; (viii) that the property was purchased and constructed from the funds of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and was assessed in the name of HUF; (ix) that Kishori Lal was the Karta of Kishori Lal HUF which was assessed with the Income Tax Authorities; (x) that after the demise of Kishori Lal, the defendant No.1 became the Karta of Kishori Lal HUF and was maintaining accounts and filing Income Tax Returns with the Department; (xi) that besides the aforementioned property, HUF also had Account No.10732271872 with State Bank of India, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi Branch and Account No.493702010004912 with Union Bank of India, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi; (xii) that in October, 2006, the parties, to avoid any dispute in respect of assets of HUF, discussed the modalities to distribute the assets owned by the HUF and it was agreed that the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.2 to 4 shall share 30% each of the assets of HUF and remaining 10% shall be shared by the defendant No.5; (xiii) that the understanding arrived amongst the parties was reduced in writing in the form of an agreement which was retained by the defendant No.1; (xiv) that sometime in November/December, 2007, in pursuance to further discussions, the shares were worked out again with plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 getting 30% each and defendants No.4&5 getting 25% and 15% respectively and the same was reduced in writing and which was also retained by the defendant No.1; (xv) that the plaintiff No.2 has been residing in the house; (xvi) that the defendant No.1 however threatened to sell the property and which led to the filing of the present suit; (xvii) that the defendant No.1, in the advance copy of the written statement served on the counsel for the plaintiffs d