( 1 ) THE facts of the present case are not disputed between the parties, who are siblings of each other. The two Plaintiffs are the sisters of the Defendant No. 1. All of them being the children of late Smt. Gobind Kaur and late Lt. Col. U. S. Sethi. The dispute between them pertains to property bearing No. B-7/6, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. A Collaboration Agreement has been executed by Defendant No. 1 with Defendant No. 2 in respect of the development of this property.

( 2 ) THE original Lease of the plot was in the name of late Smt. Gobind Kaur who expired on 16. 4. 1976. In his Written Statement Defendant No. 1 has staled that she left behind a Will dated 1. 10. 1974, but whilst this document has been mentioned in the List of Documents filed along with the Written Statement it has not been filed. The reason for this non-filing is that it is misplaced. Shri A. S. Chandhiok, Learned Senior counsel for Defendant No. 1, in the course of arguments, had stated that no reliance was being placed on this Will because of its non-availability. This document will not engage my attention any further but I am constrained, however, to observe that the mystery behind this missing Will would lead me alleast to one conclusion, it is that the said Defendant intended to unfairly gain some mileage from this otherwise non-existent document.

( 3 ) A series of Relinquishment Deeds have been executed in this case. Their execution is admitted, but their legal efficacy and applicability is hotly contested. On 15. 5. 1982 Lt. Col. U. S. Sethi and Plaintiff No. 2 executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of Defendant No. 1. This deed duly recorded that the legal heirs of late Smt. Gobind Kaur were her late husband Lt. Col. H. S. Sethi and the siblings before the Court. By this Deed the Executants had relinquished their share in favour of Shri Amar Jeet Singh Sethi, Defendant No. 1. This was followed by another Relinquishment Deed dated 25. 8. 1984 executed. by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 1. At this stage I would only mention the basic legal fallacy in the document is that a relinquishment perforce cannot be in favour of any particular co-sharer; if it is to operate in favour of a particular party it amounts to a transfer and must be effected either by Sale Deed or by a Gift Deed, depending entirely on whether there was any consideration for such a transfer.

( 4 ) THE Plaintiffs case is that a Family Settlement was arrived at between August 25, 1984 and 18th October, 1984 when the third Relinquishment Deed was executed. The last document was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of his father, that is, late Lt. Col. H. S. Sethi. In this Deed there is also a recital that the Plaintiffs would also execute Relinquishment Deeds in favour of their father. The fourth Relinquishment Deed was subsequently executed by Plaintiff No. 2 in favour of her father on 30. 7. 1985. As was expected in the third Relinquishment Deed, Plaintiff No. did not execute any Relinquishment Ltd. in favour of her father but the averments in the plaint are to the effect that she had intention to do so. Late Lt. Col. H. S. Sethi admittedly died intestate

( 5 ) ON 12. 8. 1995. The Plaintiffs assert that in these circumstances they along with their brother Defendant No. 1 being the Class I legal heirs of their father, succeeded to his estate (read the property in suit namely B-7/6, Safdurjang Enclave, New Delhi) in equal shares, that is, l/3rd each. Defendant No. 1, however, asserts that on the execution of the second Relinquishment Deed he became the exclusive owner of the suit property. It is his case that he was compelled to execute Deed dated 25. 8. 1984 whereby he had relinquished all his rights in the property in favour of his father. Since this Deed was executed without his free consent it is non-est and in any event it was not legally possible for him to relinquish his shares in favour of his father, who had no subsisting share in the property