MANMOHAN SAR1n ( 1 ) THE plaintiff Lt. Col. Gangan Deep Randhawa has filed the present suit for partition seeking partition of the property known as 14, Hanuman Road, New Delhi into five equal shares 1/5 of the plaintiff and 1/5 each of the four defendants. The defendant No. 1 is the father of (he plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the real brothers of (he plaintiff. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is (hat the property known as 14, Hanuman Road, New Delhi was originally owned by Sh. Deva Singh Randhawa and Sons HUF, having Sh. Deva Singh Randhawa and his two sons namely Sh. Nirmal Singh, defendant No. 1 and Sh. N. S. Randhawa. Disputes had arisen between the family members and a family settlement was arrived at on 31-7-1980. A family settlement was drawn on 2-8-1980 on the basis of the oral settlement and (he property in question namely 14, Hanuman Road, New Delhi was divided into two parts A and Part B. Part A fell to (he share of defendant No. 1 and part B went to the other brother, Sh. M. S. Randhawa. It is accordingly, averred that the property bearing No. 14a, Hanuman Road, New Delhi admeasuring 439. 4sq. Yards fell to the share of defendant No. 1 and has been in (he occupation of defendant No. 1 and family. The plaintiff and the other defendants accordingly are entitled to and have equal share in the same under Law. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the defendant No. 1 has been attempting to negotiate the sale of his undivided share in the property, which he cannot do. Defendant No. 1 has refused the plaintiff s request to partition the property. Written statement on behalf of the defendant No. 1 has been filed. Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 has also been filed the written statement. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in the written statement admits that the property 14, Hanuman Road, New Delhi was originally owned by Sardar Deva Singh Randhawa and Sons HUF. The memorandum of family settlement and partition dated 2-8-1980 is also admitted. It is admitted that the property 14a, Hanuman Road, New Delhi has fallen to the share of defendant as ancestral property. The memorandum of family settlement and partition dated 2-8-1980 is also admitted. It is admitted that the property 14a, Hanuman Road, New Delhi has fallen to the share of defendant as ancestral property. It is, however, denied that the plaintiff and other defendants are entitled to any share in the property. The defendants 2 and 4 filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. ( 5 ) ISSUES in the case were framed on 31-1-1995. I find from the pleadings in the case that the defendants have admitted that the property 14, Hanuman Road, New Delhi was HUF property and partitioned in terms of the family settlement. The denial by the defendant No. 1, therefore, that on partition the share which came into his hand was not ancestral or HUF property is without substance. It is significant that the defendant No. 1 admits the family settlement. I, therefore, hold that the property 14a, Hanuman Road, New Delhi, is ancestral and joint family property with plaintiff and each of the defendants having 1/5th undivided share. In these circumstances, I accordingly, pass a preliminary decree of partition in respect of the property No. 14a, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. Mr. Neeraj kaul, advocate, is appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the property and after inspection suggest ways and means for partition and division of property by metes and bounds or in any other manner. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 7000. 00.