ORDER

B. P. Jevvan Reddy, J.

1. Third defendant is the appellant. He along with Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 is the alienee of the house properly, which is the subject-matter of these appeals. Second defen-dant is the brother of third defendant and father of Defendants Nos. 4 and 5. Defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are figuring as respondents in these appeals but are supporting the third defendant.

2. Plaintiff and defendants Nos. 6 to 8 are the daughters of late Ram Nath Dewan while the first defendant is the son of Ram Nath Dewan. First defendant and second defendant have married sis-ters. First defendant was practically settled in U.S.A. along with his family. He appointed the second defendant as his General Power of Attorney. Acting as the General Power of Attorney of first defendant, the second defendant executed a sale deed in respect of No. 5, Doctors Lane. New Delhi (the house property which is the subject-matter of these appeals, which shall be referred to hereinafter as "Doctors Lane") in favour of his brother (defendant No. 3) and sons (defendant Nos. 4 and 5).

3. The plaintiff, daughter of late Ram Nath is seeking to avoid the sale of the said house property in the present suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share. The other daughters, defendants Nos. 6 to 8, are tacitly supporting the plaintiff, though they have remained ex PARTE. The first defendant too has remained ex parte. He did not even file a written statement. He died pending the suit. His legal representatives, all of whom are residing in U.S.A., have also not chosen to appear in the suits appeals. Thus, the contest has been between plaintiff on one side and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 on the other.

4. RELEVANT FACTS :

Ram Nath Dewan was a self-made man. He earned substantial properties in Delhi. He married a little late in life. His wife, Satyawati, was younger to him by at least fifteen years, if not more. They had a sun first defendant) and four daughters (plaintiff and defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8). With a view to provide a secure life to his wife. Ram Nath made a Will on 10th day of April, 1942 whereunder he bequeathed one of his properties, viz., No. 5. Doctors Lane, New Delhi to Satyawati for life. He provided that after Satyawatis death, the said property shall go to his legal heirs. Ram Nath died in the year 1953.

5. Soon after the death of Ram Nath, disputes arose between the mother and the son. The sou (first defendant) put forward another Will said to have been executed by Ram Nath on September 26, 1950 superseding the earlier Will, as many as seven suits came to be instituted between the mother and the son. In January 1955, a settlement was arrived at between them. Under this settlement, the mother. Satyawati. was given a right to reside in the first floor of the Doctors Lane house. The son was to pay her Rs. 125/- per month as maintenance allowance. If the mother did not intend to reside in the said first floor, the son was to pay her Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance allowance. Provision was made for the marriage of the youngest daughter. It was affirmed that No. 58. Todar Mal Road, Now Delhi, is the exclusive property of the mother but she undertook not to transfer the property in any manner whatsoever. After her death, the wife of the first defendant was to be the owner of the said property. Certain jewellery and other articles were also given to the mother. A joint statement in the above terms was submitted into the Court on January 27, 1955 and the suits disposed of in terms of the settlement on the same day.

6. The first defendant, Rajender Nath, was practically settled in U.S.A. along with his family. He appointed his co-son-in-law. Sri G. C. Sharma (second defendant) as his General Power of Attor-ney in respect of his properties in India. On March 4, 1971, the second defendant executed a sale deed in respect of the Doctors Lane house in favour of his brother (third defendant) and his own two sons (defendants Nos. 4 and 5). Satyawati died