1. The present suit has been filed by the four sisters through their mother as the attorney being the legal heirs of deceased late Rajendra Vikram Singh against defendant No. 1 who is the son of the brother of the deceased Rajendra Vikram Singh.

2. The deceased Rajendra Vikram Singh left two properties, that is, Half portion of B-10, Westend Colony, New Delhi admeasuring about 400 sq. yards out of total plot size of approximately 800 sq. yards and Flat No. 510, Suryakiran Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi admeasuring 1105 sq. feet and died on 2nd January, 2011 survived by the four daughters as the mother of the plaintiffs and their father had divorced. The defendant No.1 claims his right on the properties on the basis of the Will dated 5th December, 2000.

3. After the pleadings were complete the following issues were settled :

“(i) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to be declared as owners of half portions of the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi as described in Schedule I to the plaint? (OPP)

(ii) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to preliminary decree of partition and thereafter the final decree of partition by metes and bounds as prayed for in respect of the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi? (OPP)

(iii) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to decree of permanent injunction in respect of the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi as prayed for? (OPP)

(iv) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to be declared as owners of the property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi? (OPP)

(v) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to a decree for possession in respect of the property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi? (OPP)

(vi) Are the Plaintiffs entitled for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and effect thereof? (OPP)

(vii) Is the Will dated 5th December 2000 propounded by Defendant No.1 genuine? (OPD-1)

(viii) In the event Defendant No.1 succeeds in Issue No. (vii), the effect thereof? (OPP)

(ix) Has the plaint been signed and verified by a duly authorised person? (OPD-1)

(x) Have the Plaintiffs concealed any material fact and document and the effect thereof? (OPD-1)

(xi) Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC in view of earlier suit CS (OS) No. 1207 of 2001 having been dismissed? (OPD-1)

(xii) Is the suit hit by principles of res judicata? OPD-1

(xiii) Has the suit been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD-1)

(xiv) Is the relief of declaration qua the property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi barred by limitation? (OPD-1)

4. To prove its case, Plaintiffs sought to examine three witnesses Ms. Baljeet Dhillon (PW-1), the mother of the Plaintiffs who deposed as Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiffs who are her four daughters. However, after PW-1 was examined, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs stated that he did not want to examine any further witnesses. Later on permission being granted, Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 stepped into the witness box and were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Since the first two plaintiffs stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and PW-3, learned counsel for the Defendant gave up his objection on the basis of which issue No.(ix) was settled and the parties did not address arguments thereon. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also did not press issue No. (xi) in view of the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as (2013) 137 DRJ 290 Jaswinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Mrigendra Pritam Vikram Singh Steiner & Ors. wherein the challenge of the defendant No.1 herein seeking rejection of the plaint on the issue raised was declined. Hence, this Court need not return any finding on the said issues. A perusal of the facts in the plaint and the written statement reveal that the main issue in the Suit is issue No.(vii) as to whether the Will dated 5th December, 2000 propounded by Def