GITA MITTAL, J.

1. By way of this appeal, a challenge has been laid by the appellant (plaintiff in the suit) to the order dated 1st August, 2016 passed by the ld. Single Judge in I.A.No.16601/2015 (filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC) in CS(OS)No.241/2015 titled Neena Sharma v. Sudesh Sharma & Ors. by the respondents (defendants in the suit).

2. We have heard ld. counsels for the parties on this appeal.

3. The parties before us are the widow and children of late Shri Om Prakash. Late Shri Om Prakash was married to Smt. Sudesh Sharma (respondent no.1 herein). From their marriage, they were blessed with one daughter (appellant herein) and three sons, who have been arrayed as respondent nos.2 to 4 in the present appeal (defendant nos.2 to 4 in the suit).

4. Late Shri Om Prakash expired on the 17th of June 2004. Eleven years thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit on 8th January, 2015 for partition of the property as well as rendition of accounts making the following prayers :-

“a) pass a preliminary decree of partition of the property declaring one fifth share of the plaintiff in it, more appropriately described in paragraphs 3 of the plaint.

(b) appoint local commissioner to divide physically the property more appropriately described in paragraph 3 of the plaint into the five equal workable shares and separate 1/5th share of plaintiff by metes and bound, if plaintiff and defendants fails to come to consensus terms in dividing the property by separating the 1/5th share of plaintiff.

(c) pass a final decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition by confirming the report of the local commissioner to divide physically and separating one fifth shares of the plaintiff or confirm the consensus terms arrived by plaintiff and defendants in dividing the suit property appropriately described in paragraph 3 of the plaint.

(d) pass a decree of accounts rendering the defendants to give fair accounts of the realized rent from the suit properties since 17.06.2004.

(e) award the cost of suit to the plaintiff against the defendants.”

5. Asserting that late Shri Om Prakash died intestate, the appellant claimed 1/5th share in the properties and sought partition as well as rendition of accounts. The properties of which partition was sought are averred in para 3 of the plaint as follows :

“3. That the father/husband of parties to suit during his life time by his own earnings purchased following properties and improved them to their present structure situated in Ashok Park Main, Delhi-110 035 :-

(a) Property bearing no.41-42A, having total area about 205 sq.yds. Constructed four stories, in the name of defendant no.1.

(b) Property bearing No.5 (Constructed four stories) & 6 (Constructed three stories) having total area about 113 sq.yds. & about 60 sq. yds. Respectively, in the name of late father/husband of parties to suit.”

6. The respondents filed a joint written statement dated 5th August, 2015 wherein the following preliminary objections were taken with regard to ownership of the properties :

“2. That the Plaintiff has no locus standi to claim partition or any other consequential relief in respect of property no. 41-42A, Ashok Park Main, Delhi-110035 or properties no.5 & 6, Ashok Park Main, Delhi-110035 (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit properties”). The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit on the premise that the Suit properties are self acquired properties of Late Sh. Om Prakash, father of Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and husband of Defendant No.1 and as Class I Legal heir of Late Sh. Om Prakash, the Plaintiff is entitled to equal share in the said Suit properties along-with the Defendants. However, the factual position is that the Plaintiff whilst filing the present Suit has malafidely suppressed from this Hon’ble Court that the Defendant No.1 is the sole and absolute owner of abovementioned suit properties. The Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the said Suit properties and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief qua