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 o