IMPORTANT POINT
If there is no undue delay, no inconsistent cause of action is introduced and no vested interest or accrued legal right is affected and the application for amendment is not mala fide or will not prejudice the opposite party, the amendment should ordinarily be allowed.

V.K. Jain, J. —Late Harcharan Singh Barar, who died on 6th September, 2009, had two wives, namely Mrs. Jagir Kaur, who died in 1992 and Mrs. Gurbrinder Brar (defendant No.2). The plaintiff Adesh Kanwarjit Singh Brar is the son of late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar from his second wife Mrs. Gurbrinder Brar, whereas defendant No.1 Ms. Babli Brar is his sister. Defendant No. 3 Ms. Charanjit Kaur Brar is the step sister of the plaintiff being the daughter of late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar from his first wife Mrs. Jagir Kaur.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar was Karta of Brar HUF, which owned agricultural land measuring about 2000 acres in Village Serainaga, District Muktsar, Punjab. It is further alleged that on or about September 13, 1951, there was a partition of the ancestral agricultural property, which formed a part of the estate belonging to Brar HUF. Under the partition, agricultural land was divided between the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 Mrs. Gurbrinder Brar, Mussammat Uttam Kaur, mother of late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar and late Shri Harcharan Sirlgh Brar. It is further alleged that plot No.6 in Block No.172 of Jor Bagh measuring 1404 sq. yds. was purchased and construction on the aforesaid plot was raised from the funds contributed by the plaintiff, his father late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar and his mother Mrs. Gurbrinder Kaur, defendant No.2 in the ratio of ¼ and ½ respectively. These funds were generated by sale of lands, which had fallen to the individual shares of the plaintiff and his parents after the partition effected in the year 1951. It is further alleged that the lease deed was nominally executed in favour of late Shri Harcharan Singh Brar, who had lent his name for the purpose of completing the formalities of execution of the lease deed.

3. It is also alleged that Shri Harcharan Singh Brar has consistently been holding out by his conduct as well as by his admission before Income-tax and Revenue authorities as well as to the private parties that he was the owner only to the extent of ¼ the share the plaintiff held ½ share and defendant No. 2 held ¼ th share in Jor Bagh property. The plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the ground floor and first floor of the aforesaid property along with his sons, whereas defendant No. 1 is stated to be in possession of the second floor. It is further alleged that after death of Shri Harcharan Singh Brar during the course of family discussion on 6th September, 2009 with respect to his ¼ th undivided share, defendant No. 1, for the first time, claimed that in January, 1999 Shri Harcharan Sigh Brar had executed a gift deed in her favour and she was the owner of the entire property. The plaintiff thereupon conducted an inquiry in the office of the Sub-Registrar and came to know of the gift deed, executed by Shri Harcharan Singh Brar in favour of defendant No. 1 on January 28, 1999 there by gifting the entire Jor Bagh property to her. In the Gift Deed Shri Harcharan Singh Brar stated that the suit property was his self acquired property and he was its absolute owner. The mutation in the name of defendant no. 1 was also carried out by L and D on the basis of the gift deed, executed in her favour. The plaintiff has sought declaration declaring the gift deed dated January 28, 1999 as null and void and not binding on him. He has also sought a declaration that he is the owner of half of the land and building at 6 Jor Bagh New Delhi and that the mutation of the aforesaid property in the name of defendant No. 1 is also null and void. He has further sought partition of the aforesaid property and an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from creating any third party interest therein.

4. IA No. 4016/2011 has been filed by defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, whereas IA No. 4700/2011 has been filed by the plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint.

5. It is claimed in IA No. 4016/2011 that the prayers made in the plaint are ex facie b