The main legal point established is the determination of undivided shares in the property and the rights and obligations of the parties in a partition suit.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - The plaintiff instituted this suit against her eight sisters namely (i) Gulshan, (ii) Samina Bano, (iii) Husna, (iv) Razia, (v) Parveen Begum, (vi) Nasim, (vii) Shahnaj Bano Rangrej and (viii) Yasmeen and against defendant No.9 Mahesh Kumar Parwal, for partition of property No.E-2A, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi constructed on land admeasuring 247 sq. yds. and comprising of ground floor (except one godown, sold by common ancestor of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 in her lifetime), first floor and third floor with open terrace above, claiming 1/9th undivided share therein and pleading that the defendants No.1 to 8 had sold their undivided 8/9th share in the property to the defendant No.9 Mahesh Kumar Parwal. No partition of second floor of the property, also sold by common ancestor aforesaid in her lifetime, was sought

2. The suit came up first before this Court on 8th August, 2018, when summons thereof were ordered to be issued and status-quo qua title and possession claimed by the plaintiff of front portion of the third floor of the property, directed to be maintained.

3. The defendants No.1 to 8 have filed a common written statement. The defendant No.9 has filed a separate written statement.

4. It is the plea of the defendants No.1 to 8 as well as of the defendant No.9 in their respective written statements, that the plaintiff had agreed to sell her 1/9th undivided share in the property to the defendants No.1 to 8 for Rs.45 lacs and received Rs.5 lacs in advance from the defendants No.1 to 8. The defendant No.9 additionally pleaded, that it was represented to him by defendants No.1 to 8 at the time of sale that the property had been verbally partitioned between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 and in which partition the portion of the third floor in possession of plaintiff had fallen to the exclusive share of the plaintiff.

5. A perusal of the sale deed executed by the defendants No.1 to 8 in favour of the defendant No.9 shows the same to be with respect to 8/9th undivided share of the defendants No.1 to 8 in the property of which partition is sought in the suit. The same negates the plea in the written statement of defendant No.9, of a verbal partition in which the front portion of the third floor in occupation of the plaintiff had fallen to the exclusive share of the plaintiff.

6. As far as the plea of the defendants, of the plaintiff having agreed to sell her 1/9th undivided share to the defendants No.1 to 8 for Rs.45 lacs, is concerned, the counsel for the defendants No.1 to 8 states that a suit for specific performance of the said agreement has been filed and the same is pending in the Court of Ms. Charu Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. On enquiry, it is informed that the plaintiff is denying any agreement to sell or receipt of Rs.5 lacs.

7. Today, it has been mutually and amicably agreed by the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendants No.1 to 8 and the counsel for the defendant No.9 (with counsels acting under instructions of their respective clients):

(A) that the property be partitioned by metes and bounds, with the front portion of the third floor already in possession of the plaintiff and shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the plaintiff with the plaint and on which today Ex.C-1 is put, falling to the exclusive share of the plaintiff and the remaining property, for partition of which the suit is filed including the portion of the property since sold by defendants No.1 to 8 to defendant No.9, fallingto the exclusive share of defendant No.9;

(B) that the plaintiff is not in possession of any other portion of the property except the front portion of the third floor and if in possession of any other portion, shall be liable to be dispossessed therefrom;

(C) that the plaintiff, besides being exclusive owner of the aforesaid portion, shall also have right only to use in common with other occupants including defendant No.9 of the property, of o