(1.) THIS order is necessitated on the plea of the defendants No. 1and2 that the plaintiff in this suit for partition had in the year 2004 applied for sale of the property under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 and the defendants are entitled to purchase the share in the property of the plaintiff at the valuation of the year 2004. The plaintiff denies having so applied for sale and further contests the position that he is liable to sell his share in the property to the defendants at the valuation of the year 2004. The proceedings in this suit are of relevance for adjudication of the said matter in controversy.
(2.) THE property subject matter of suit is 13a/6a Western Extension area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi comprising of a ground, first and a second floor. The plaintiff, on or about 16th August, 1994 instituted a suit in the court of the District Judge, Delhi for partition of the said property inter alia on the ground that he and his two brothers the defendants to the suit were the owners of 1/3 undivided share each of the said property under the will of their grandmother, that while the plaintiff was in possession of one room on the first floor of the property, which had been kept locked by him after moving out of the property owing to paucity of accommodation, the defendants were in use of the entire remaining property. The plaintiff in the said plaint of 1994 valued his 1/3 share in the property at more than Rs. 3 lacs.
(3.) THE defendants filed the written statement inter alia pleading that the court of the Additional District Judge before whom that suit was filed did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and that the property already stood partitioned between the plaintiff and the defendants as per the oral family settlement of January, 1994 whereunder the entire second floor along with the rights to raise further construction had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and the entire ground floor and the entire first floor had fallen to the share of the defendants.