PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The Plaintiff, Shri Krishan Gopal (hereinafter Plaintiff) and Defendant, Shri Prahlad Kumar (hereinafter Defendant) are the sons of late Shri Raghu Nath Sahai who was the owner of B-198, Maharana Pratap Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034 admeasuring 308.33 square yards. The lease deed signed by the DDA in favour of Shri Raghu Nath Sahai, in respect of the said plot is duly registered. Shri Sahai passed away, intestate, on 16th October, 1985. He was survived by two sons, three daughters and his widow at the time of his death.

2. The widow of Shri Sahai, Smt. Naraini Devi and the three daughters, Smt. Bimla Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi and Smt. Sunita @ Sudha executed a relinquishment deed dated 3rd June, 1992 relinquishing their share in the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The said deed is a registered relinquishment deed. Thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant became co-owners of the property. The property stands mutated in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant vide mutation letter dated 9th July, 1993.

3. The property has already been converted from leasehold to freehold by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and consequently, conveyance deed has been executed by the DDA on 15th November, 1999 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 18th November, 1999. The mother of the parties expired on 5th August, 2009.

4. According to the Plaintiff, he owns 50% of the share of the suit property. It is the Plaintiff’s case that after the demise of the mother, he repeatedly sought partition of the suit property. However, despite repeated requests, the Defendant did not accede to the partition and hence the present suit seeking partition of the suit property into equal shares in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

5. Along with the plaint, the site plan has been annexed as Annexure-A. According to the site plan, the suit property has been divided into the front portion and the back portion. The Plaintiff submits that the front portion has been constructed into three floors and the rear portion has only the ground floor. According to the Plaintiff, there is a side gallery which permits access to the rear portion of the property. The front portion is in the possession of the Defendant and the rear portion is in possession of the Plaintiff. Since the portions are not equal and the Defendant has a larger share of the suit property, hence the Plaintiff seeks partition, in equal shares.

6. In the written statement, the case of the Defendant is that the front portion falls in the share of the Defendant as per the partition deed dated 31st December, 1994 and family settlement dated 1st October, 1997. It is further pleaded that the entire construction for the front portion was raised by the Defendant on his own. The plea of limitation is also raised by the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 15th February, 2011 which was replied on 28th February, 2011 but the suit has come to be filed only on 19th May, 2014, after a gap of more than three years. The following documents are admitted and were exhibited in the Court record:-

(a) Partition deed dated 31st December, 1994 (Ex.D-1).

(b) Family settlement dated 1st October, 1997 (Ex.D-3).

(c) Sanctioned plan (Ex PW1/D1).

(d) Copy of the bank statement of the Defendant (Ex. DW-1/1).

(e) Death certificate of Shri Sahai and his wife (Ex.P-1) and (Ex.P-2).

(f) Relinquishment Deed dated 3rd June 1992 (Ex. DW-1/P-1).

(g) Legal notice dated 15th February, 2011 (Ex.P-3).

(h) Reply dated 28th February, 2011 (Ex.P-4).

7. The following issues were framed on 16th November, 2015:

“1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

2. Whether any oral partition took place between the parties? OPD

3. Whether a valid Partition Deed dated 31st December, 1994 was executed between the parties, if so its effect? OPD

4. Whether a valid Family Settlement dated 1st October, 1997 was executed between the parties, if so its effect? OPP

5. Whether