The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property was not HUF property, and the appellant failed to prove his contributions. The court also upheld the validity of the Will disinheriting the appellant.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No. 3108/2019 (for reviving the appeal)

1. This application is allowed and the appeal is revived in view of what is recorded in the order dated 12.03.2018.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 3109/2019 (for additional grounds)

2. This application is allowed and the appellant is allowed to urge additional grounds and additional questions of law especially challenge made to the order of the trial court dated 14.09.2018.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 3110/2019 (exemption)

3. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 3111/2019 (for condonation of delay)

4. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 242/2018

5. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff/brother (and son of original defendant no. 1- the mother) impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 18.11.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for declaration and partition filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to property bearing no. A-19, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi.

6. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint was that the suit property was allotted by DDA to him but at the request of the father/Sh. Sampat Rai, the perpetual Lease Deed dated 03.07.1972 of the suit property was executed by the DDA in the name of the father, Sh. Sampat Rai. It was however pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff had paid the consideration for purchase of the property and some of the consideration for the purchase of the property was paid out of the HUF business. The suit property was pleaded to be an HUF property. The lease of the plot was registered in the name of the father as the father, Sh. Sampat Rai, was the karta and head of the family. The appellant/plaintiff also by the subject suit impugns the Will dated 10.02.1993 executed by the father by which the appellant/plaintiff was disinherited qua the suit property and the father gave the suit property to defendant nos. 2 to 3 being his two other sons, namely Sh. Satish Kumar Singhal and Sh. Prehlad Rai. In the suit since one son (brother of plaintiff), Sh. Prehlad Rai, had expired, he was represented by his son Sh. Nikhil Singhal who was sued as defendant no. 2. Sh. Prehlad Rai had died during the pendency of the said suit. The daughters of Sh. Sampat Rai were also made party to the suit as defendants but it was pleaded that the daughters had relinquished their shares in the suit property in favour of their brothers i.e. sons of late Sh. Sampat Rai. The suit for partition was therefore prayed to be decreed.

7. The suit was essentially contested by two family members, and who were the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit, legal heir of the deceased Sh. Prehlad Rai namely Sh. Nikhil Singhal, and Sh. Satish Kumar Singhal. The mother of the parties, Smt. Sona Devi, who was sued as defendant no. 1 expired during the pendency of the suit. The defence of the contesting defendants was that there was no HUF. It was denied that the suit property was an HUF property. It was denied that the appellant/plaintiff ever paid any amounts for purchase of the suit property to the DDA. It was stated that the appellant/plaintiff was posted as a Junior Engineer at PWD in Manipur and he did not have enough money to rear his own family, what to talk of giving funds to the father, Sh. Sampat Rai, for purchase of the property. The father, Sh. Sampat Rai, had purchased the suit property from his own funds. It was also pleaded by the contesting defendant nos. 2 and 3 that the father had executed his Will dated 10.02.1993 bequeathing the suit property to the defendant nos. 2 and 3. It was also the case of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 that in fact the appellant/plaintiff had himself relied upon this Will dated 10.02.1993 because on the basis of this Will, the appellant/plaintiff had got his name mutated wi