The main legal point established is the validity of the relinquishment deed under the Hindu Succession Act and the requirement for evidence to support claims of settlement.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff impleading his brotherSanjay Bhatia, mother-Shanta Bhatia and sister-Anita Bhatia as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, inter alia, seeking a decree of partition and injunction in respect to property bearing 92, Raja Garden as also a preliminary decree based on the respective shares of the parties.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that property bearing municipal No. 92, Raja Garden, New Delhi- 110015 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. (in short the suit property) was purchased by the late father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 & 3 and the husband of defendant No.2 Shri Ved Prakash Bhatia from his own funds and resources vide the sale deed dated 21st July, 1965 executed in his favour by Shri Jagdish Rai Sood. Shri Ved Prakash Bhatia died intestate at New Delhi on 28th January, 2007 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as the four legal heirs, each entitled to 25% shares in his estate and assets including the suit property. Shri Ved Prakash Bhatia was also the owner of ground floor except one shop of a built up property bearing No. FA/F-297, Mansarover Garden (in short the Mansarover Garden Property). After the death of Shri Ved Prakash Bhatia, plaintiff and defendant No.1 & 3 executed a relinquishment deed dated 16 th February, 2009 in favour of defendant No.2 i.e. the mother in respect of the Mansarover Garden property. The said relinquishment deed dated 16 th February, 2009 categorically noted that Ved Prakash Bhatia passed away on 28th January, 2007 leaving behind the parties to the relinquishment deed each having 1/4th share under the Hindu Succession Act.

3. Further, vide the relinquishment deed dated 11th December, 2013 Smt. Shanta Bhatia irrevocably and absolutely bequeathed and conveyed her 1/4th share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 in the year 2015 2017 number of times to partition the suit property but the defendant No.1 declined. The defendant No.2 &3 have always stated that the plaintiff was owner of 50% share of the suit property. Thus, based on the relinquishment deed dated 11th December, 2013 executed by Smt. Shanta Bhatia in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff claim partition of the suit property and his 50% share therein.

4. Written statement to the suit was filed by defendant No.1 stating that Shri Ved Prakash Bhatia was in the real estate business since 1960 and thus held various movable and immovable properties and besides the suit property and the Mansarover Garden property, he also owned first and second floor of property bearing No. D-36, Gali No.1, Govind Puri opposite Kalkaji Bus Depot (in short the Govind Puri Property). As per the written statement Ved Prakash Bhatia had good income from his real estate business which he used to keep in his account as well as in the account of his wife and thus the money lying in the account of his wife i.e. defendant No.2 was from the earnings of late Ved Prakash Bhatia. He further claims that Ved Prakash Bhatia had various bank accounts, LIC, FDRs, control whereof was with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 & 3. That all the parties executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Mrs. Shanta Bhatia in respect of Mansarover Garden property which she thereafter sold. The sale proceeds from the Mansarover Garden property and other movable assets were transferred into the account of Smt. Shanta Bhatia and Anita Bhatia. It is claimed that it was further decided that defendant No.2 and 3 shall relinquish their respective shares of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and thus the plaintiff and defendant No.1 acquired 50% share each in the suit property and thus each one of them was entitled to possession of their respective portion, though no formal partition had taken place. The defendant No.1 is in possession of the entire ground floor and half portion of the second floor with roof rights, whereas the plai