The principle of equal shares in a partition, the lack of merit in claims of exclusive ownership without proper evidence, and the dismissal of claims based on oral agreements for transfer of property rights.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants No.1&2 have been heard.

2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that a preliminary decree for partition of property No.A-39, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi can be passed forthwith.

3. It is argued, (i) that the subject property belonged to Sangat Singh, who was the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1; (ii) that the defendant No.2 Geeta Bhalla Singh is the wife of the defendant No.1; (iii) that Sangat Singh died intestate leaving only two sons i.e. Tarlochan Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and Gajpal Singh, as his natural heirs; (iv) that after the demise of Tarlochan Singh, a decree for partition with respect to the estate of Sangat Singh was passed and under which decree, the subject property fell to the exclusive share of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 along with their mother Joginder Kaur, and some other properties fell to the share of Gajpal Singh; (v) that the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 Joginder Kaur died intestate, leaving the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 as her only natural heirs; and, (vi) that on the demise of Joginder Kaur, the leasehold rights in the land underneath the subject property were mutated in the names of plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the conveyance deed of freehold rights in the land underneath the property has also been executed in the joint names of plaintiff and the defendant No.1.

4. On enquiry, as to the cause of action for the present suit, it is argued that the subject property has been attached for the dues owed by the defendant No.1.

5. Though the plaintiff, when the suit came up for admission on 25th October, 2018 had not filed the documents qua attachment but has since filed the documents and which show that on the representation of the decree holder Airads Ltd. that the subject property belonged to the judgment debtor Headstart Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the subject property was ordered to be attached vide order dated 31st August, 2013 of Additional District Judge-09 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Ex. No.19/2015.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff thus states that there is no impediment to a preliminary decree for partition being passed.

7. The counsel for the defendants No.1&2 has argued (a) that on the averments in the plaint itself, the defendant No.2 is not a necessary and proper party and IA No.2698/2019 has been filed for deletion of the name of the defendant No.2; and, (b) that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, not because of the order of attachment but because of complaint filed by defendant No.2 against the plaintiff.

8. On enquiry, the counsel for the plaintiff as well as the counsel for the defendants No.1&2 state that the property comprises of ground, first and a fully constructed second floors and all the floors are in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1.

9. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the counsel for the defendant No.1 states that admission/denial of documents be permitted to be done.

10. When the essential facts for a decree for partition to be passed are not in dispute, it is not understandable, why the counsel is interested in filing affidavit of admission/denial of documents.

11. The counsel for the defendant No.1 states that it is also the plea of the defendant No.1 that only the ground floor of the property was constructed by Sangat Singh, and the first floor and the second floor have been constructed by the defendant No.1 with his own monies and the same is substantiated from the valuation report filed by the defendant No.1.

12. The valuation report referred to only states that the ground floor and mezzanine floor were constructed in the year 1961, the first floor was constructed in the years 1965-1966 and the barsati floor was constructed in the years 1983-1985. The same does not show that the same was constructed by the defendant No.1. It is also