The court emphasized that once a party agrees to partition, they cannot impose conditions outside the law and stall the distribution of the estate.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The four petitioners, of which petitioners no.1&2 namely Lina Khosla and Sonia Dutta are the daughters, and the petitioners no.3&4 namely Navin Devichand and Takeshwar Devichand, are the sons of late Joginder Lal Devichand, filed this petition seeking Letters of Administration to the estate of late Joginder Lal Devichand on the basis of the document dated 7th October,2002 stated to be the validly executed last Will of the said Joginder Lal Devichand.

2. The only other son/heir of late Joginder Lal Devichand, namely Rajan Devichand was impleaded as respondent no.2.

3. The petition was entertained and citation thereof issued. The respondent no.2 has filed objections to the Letters of Administration sought by the petitioners.

4. Proceedings were listed last before this Court on 5th September,2019 for framing of issues, when the counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners did not desire to litigate and were agreeable to division of the estate as mentioned in Schedule-A to the petition at page 7 of the Part-IIIA file, comprising of the following properties:-

I. Immovable Assets

1. Flat at NO.B-81, LGF, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi Valuation:- Rs.2.25 Crores [Approx.]

2. C-I/1036, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Valuation:- Rs.1.40 Crores [Approx.]

3. Tenancy and Business at Shop No.19-A, Connaught Place New Delhi. (Devichand's) and the following movable estates of late Joginder Lal Devichand with each of the four petitioners.

II. Moveable Assets

1. All Valuable Furniture, Fixtures & Fittings at B-81, LGF, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. Valuation:- Rs.5 Lacs [Approx.]

2. All Valuable Furniture, Fixtures & Fittings at C-I/1036, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Valuation:- Rs.2 Lacs [Approx.]

3. All Valuable Furniture, Fixtures & Fittings, Books of Accounts and Raw materials. Valuation:Rs.1.5 Lacs [Approx.]

4. Maruti Suzuki 800CC Car (Model 1985). Valuation:- Not Known.

with the four petitioners and the respondent no.2 each getting 1/5th undivided share therein.

5. On request of the counsel for the respondent no.2 on 5th September,2019, the proceedings were adjourned to today and personal presence of the respondent no.2 directed.

6. The counsel for the respondent no.2 states that the respondent no.2 is present in person. It is further stated that of the three immovable properties, the flat at Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and the business at Connaught Place, were/are properties of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which late Joginder Lal Devichand had only a 1/4th share.

7. On enquiry, it is informed that late Joginder Lal Devichand died in the year 2002 i.e. prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,2005.

8. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not admit the properties aforesaid to be HUF properties. It is also contended that the petitioners, for the sake of settlement, have agreed to the respondent no.2 also having a share, though he stands excluded therefrom by the provisions of the Special Marriage Act,1954.

9. The counsel for the respondent no.2, on being told that if the respondent no.2 desires the aforesaid questions to be gone into, the same cannot be done in this Test. Cas. and a separate proceeding therefor will have to be initiated, under instructions from the respondent no.2 states that the respondent no.2 is agreeable to the proposal of the petitioners, of each of the four petitioners and the respondent no.2 being declared to be having 1/5th undivided share in the estate. He however states that the respondent no.2 be given his 1/5th share in monetary terms, within such time as may be ordered by this Court, instead of being relegated to division of the estate by metes of bound or to sale of the estate pursuant to final decree for partition.

10. The counsel for the petitioners states that neither of the petitioners are in a position to pay the money equivalent of 1/5th share of the respondent no.2, and in fact, pursuant to a preliminary decree for partition, also se