The court can pass a decree without trial when there are admissions of fact and no genuine defense raised. The interpretation of a Will does not require evidence and can be decided based on settled principles of construction.

JUDGMENT

amit Bansal, J. - The present suit has been instituted seeking partition of the property bearing No. D-897, New Friends Colony, New Delhi admeasuring about 471 square yards (suit property).

PLEaDINGS IN THE PLaINT

2. It has been stated in the plaint that:

i. The suit property belonged to Mrs. Sheila Kapila, who expired intestate on 8th april, 2003.

ii. Late Mrs. Sheila Kapila left behind four children, being Mrs. Sudha Panda, Mrs. Leela Kapila, Dr. Rajendra Kapila and Mr. Jitendra Kapila, who inherited the aforesaid property equally.

iii. Mrs. Sudha Panda, the eldest daughter of late Mrs. Sheila Kapila died intestate on 10th November, 2019. at present, the three plaintiffs are the sole legal heirs of late Mrs. Sheila Kapila.

iv. The defendant no.1, Mrs. Leela Kapila is settled in England and is entitled to 25% undivided share in the suit property.

v. The defendant no. 2, Mr. Jitendra Kapila is settled in the United States of america (USa) and is entitled to 25% undivided share in the suit property.

vi. Late Dr. Rajendra Kapila, being one of the sons of late Mrs. Sheila Kapila, was a resident of USa and expired on 28th april, 2021, in New Delhi. Before his death, he executed a Will in terms of which he bequeathed all his estate to his second wife, the defendant no.3. The defendants no.4 and 5 are the son and daughter of late Dr. Rajendra Kapila respectively, from his first wife.

vii. Legal proceedings are going on in USa between the defendant no.3 on one hand and the defendants no.4 and 5 on the other hand, in respect of the estate of late Dr. Rajendra Kapila.

viii. The suit property is not capable of division by metes and bounds.

ix. The plaintiffs no.1 to 3 together, defendant no.1, defendant no.2, and the defendants no.3, are entitled to 25% undivided share each in the suit property.

3. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, a decree of partition is sought in respect of the suit property.

PLEaDINGS IN THE WRITTEN STaTEMENTS

4. The defendants no.1, 2 and 3 have filed separate written statements supporting the case of the plaintiffs.

5. The defendants no.4 and 5 have filed separate written statements opposing the reliefs claimed in the suit. The main contention of the defendants no. 4 and 5 in their written statements is that late Mrs. Sheila Kapila had executed a Will dated 18th November, 1999 in terms of which the defendants no.1 and 2 only have a beneficial life interest in the suit property and not an absolute interest.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLaINTIFFS

6. Ms. Manmeet arora, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has made the following submissions.

i. The 25% share of the plaintiffs in the suit property has not been disputed by the defendants no.4 and 5 in their written statements.

ii. The defendants no.4 and 5 have admitted in their written statements that they are only entitled to 25% share in the suit property.

iii. In the email dated 2nd November, 2021 the defendants no.4 and 5 along with their mother have admitted to the 25% shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 and 2.

iv. The original of the Will dated 18th November, 1999 of late Mrs. Sheila Kapila has not been produced by the defendants no.4 and 5 before the Court, though they have placed reliance on the same.

v. Even if the said Will is admitted, a reading of the Will shows that each of the children of late Mrs. Sheila Kapila were bequeathed 25% share in the suit property.

vi. In the probate proceedings for the estate of late Mr. Rajendra Kapila in USa, a schedule of assets of late Dr. Rajendra Kapila has been filed on behalf of the defendants no.4 and 5, wherein it is admitted that late Dr. Rajendra Kapila's share in the suit property was to the extent of 25%.

vii. The defendant no.3 in her written statement admits that the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are each entitled to 25% undivided share in the suit property.

viii. The defendants no.4 and 5 have not disputed the fact that the suit property cannot be divided by metes and bounds.

ix. The defendants no