JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A suit for Partition, Declaration and Permanent Injunction has been filed by the plaintiff in respect of 162 sq yards out of the suit property measuring 2 Bighas and 8.5 Biswas in Khasra No. 265 on the ground that the suit property originally belonged Shri Ram Lal, the great grandfather of the plaintiff which was inherited by his deceased father Late Shri Maha Singh as a HUF property. He therefore has a share in the property by virtue of being a coparcener.

2. Submissions heard as to the maintainability of the suit.

3. The facts as narrated by the plaintiff are that late Shri Ram Lal, great grandfather of the plaintiff was the sole owner of land admeasuring 4 Bigha 17 Biswa having Khasra No. 265 in Village Saidula Jab, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. After the demise of late Shri. Ram Lal (who died before 1956), the property came into the possession of his two sons namely late Shri. Chotte and late Shri. Lajje Ram. Since late Shri. Ram Lal had died before 1956, it came in the hands of the successors as HUF Property. The Half share of the Khasra No. 265 which is 2 Bigha and 8.5 Biswa which came to Shri Chottey, was sold by his wife Smt. Ms. Sarti Devi, to some persons who are in its possession as is shown in yellow colour in the site plan. The other half of the suit property measuring 2 Bigha and 8.5 Biswa as shown red in the site plan, came to the share of late Shri. Lajje Ram as Hindu Undivided Family Property.

4. Shri. Lajje Ram was survived by three sons namely, late Shri. Maha Singh, late Shri. Suraj Singh and late Shri. Bhim Singh. Plaintiff is the son of late Shri. Maha Singh. It is asserted by the plaintiff that since the property was inherited from his great grandfather, late Shri. Ram Lal, he became part of the Hindu Undivided Family as a coparcener and became co-sharer in the suit property that is 2 Bigha and 8.5 Biswas in Khasra No. 265 in Village Saidula Jab, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. It is asserted that the suit property was never divided amongst the three sons of late Shri. Lajje Ram and has a status of Hindu Undivided Property.

5. The plaintiff has explained that he and defendant nos. 1 to 6 are the Legal Heirs of late Shri Maha Singh. Defendants Nos. 7 to 17 are Legal Heirs of late Shri Suraj Singh and defendant nos. 18 to 21 are the Legal Heirs of late Shri Bhim Singh. It is asserted that the plaintiff along with defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 remained co-sharer in the suit property till the death of Shri Maha Singh on 15.02.2015.

6. The plaintiff has further stated that late Shri Maha Singh entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 24.04.2006 for sale of entire 815 sq. yds. with defendant no. 22 for a total consideration of Rs. 24,45,000/-. It is claimed that late Shri. Maha Singh had no authority to execute the Agreement to Sell in respect of the share to the extent of 162 sq yards of which the plaintiff was the owner being a part of the HUF. Thus, the Agreement to Sell along with Special Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Undertaking, Possession Letter, Receipt all dated 24.04.2006, the Will dated 04.05.2006 and GPA dated 21.04.2006 are all null and void to the extent of the share of the plaintiff i.e. 162 Sq. Yards.

7. It is further submitted that Shri Maha Singh died on 1st February, 2015. The plaintiff and other co-sharers acquired a title in the suit property by their birth as coparceners and Shri Maha Singh was only entitled to transfer his own share i.e. 1/18th share in 2 Bighas 8.5 Biswas in Khasra No. 265 being a coparcener. Therefore, the Agreement to Sell dated 24th June, 2006 would be deemed to be executed only in respect of 1/18th share of Maha Singh i.e. 136 Sq. Yards and not 815 Sq. Yards.

8. The plaintiff has asserted that after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005, the daughters along with the sons have been made the coparceners. This implies that Maha Singh as Karta/ Manager of HUF had no authority to transfer the HUF property without the consent of other coparcen