K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) I shall now take up suit No. 1369/95. Plaintiff Smt. Raj Kumari Srivastava is the mother of defendants 1 to 4. The fact that plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property is not disputed. As a matter of fact, a preliminary decree declaring the 50% share of the plaintiff in me suit property was passed on the 28th of August 1995. ( 2 ) A local commissioner was appointed to divide the property suggesting mode for division by metes and bounds. ( 3 ) IN view of the fact mat the parties do not dispute the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property, I do not want to set out the facts in detail except a very few to appreciate the present situation. ( 4 ) ORIGINALLY, me property belonged to Sh. Shyam Sunder Lal. He had three brothers, one of them had pre-deceased Sh. Shyam Sunder Lal. Sh. Shyam Sunder Lal died in 1938 and the estate went to the reversioners, his brother Sh. Rayu Lal and Sh. Shadi Lal. ( 5 ) BY this process, Sh. Rajju Lal and Sh. Shadi Lal became owners, is a matter of admission. Sh. Rajju, Lal s wife Smt. Kela Devi died in 1963. Sh. Rajju Lal died on the 24th of March 1966. Therefore, his half, share devolved on the plaintiff Smt. Raj Kumari Srivastava. Therefore, the claim of me plaintiff to 50%. share is not disputed by the defendants. ( 6 ) THE other share belonging to Sh. Shadi Lal devolved on his death, on Smt. Kiran Devi, the 5th. defendant. ( 7 ) THE 5th defendant is entitled to other halfshre, is also a matter of admission. ( 8 ) THE first defendant, who is the son of the plaintiff, and the second defendnat, who is also son of the plaintiff, claim the other half share by virtue of some documents, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Kiran Devi, which are disputed by her. As I had already mentioned in my order dated 28. 8. 1995, that is a matter to be gone into in an appropriate action. ( 9 ) THE Commissioner appointed by mis Court Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh visited the premises i. e. 32 School Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. The local commissioner submitted his report with plans on 23. 9. As I had already mentioned in my order dated 28. 8. 1995, that is a matter to be gone into in an appropriate action. ( 9 ) THE Commissioner appointed by mis Court Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh visited the premises i. e. 32 School Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. The local commissioner submitted his report with plans on 23. 9. 1995 At page 6 of his report, he has given an opinion that the property can be divided as suggested by him as annexure D. In paragraph c on the heading division of the disputed property into two equal shares and demarcation of the 50% (Fifty percent) share of the suit property to be given to the plaintiff , the local commissioner had expressed the following view as to how the plaintiff should be allotted the portion having regard to her status:- " (I) That the plaintiff is the undisputed owner of the one-half share of the suit property; (ii) That she is the mother of defendnats No. 1,2,3 and 4 respectively and, therefore, is worthy of a share of the property which is in accordance with her status and dignity; (iii) That she is a very elderly widow; (iv) That she has been deprived other rightful property and reinstatement of her in her own property must be so done that she an spend her last days of life in peace, enjoying freedom and independence. AND (v) That the defendant No. 1 and 5 jointly and also defendant No. 3, are already in possession of and residing in the suit property even if assuming, without prejudice to their rights, that they are not legally entitled to do so and, therefore, me one-half share of the property to be presently and temporarily allocataed to them, must be so which will cause them the minimurn dislocation and discomfort in accordance with the partition, as per the orders of the Hon ble Court. AND (vi) Suggestions of parties before Local Commission. "regarding me actual allotment, the local commissioner has proposed in the plan Annexure D that the portion marked 1 coming within the alphabets DCBE may be allotted to the plaintiff. He has noticed that the total ground area of this portion is 1880. 91 sq. ft. The total area of the entire suit property is 3 762sq. ft. The local commissioner has also noticed that this portion has two sides open. He has noticed that the total ground area of this portion is 1880. 91 sq. ft. The total area of the entire suit property is 3 762sq. ft. The local commissioner has also noticed that this portion has two sides open. The local commissioner has noticed that the covered area on this portion is less than the remaining half portion of the suit property, that may be allotted to defendants 1,3 and 5. ( 11 ) THE local commissioner has suggested that the portion marked BAEF may be allotted to defendants 1,3 and 5 jointly subject to determination of their rights. The local commissioner has also noticed that in the portion marked number 2, covered by the alphabets BAEF, the third defendant has to construct a bath room and kitchen as the bath room and the kitchen in the other portion would go to the plaintiff. The local comissioner has also suggested that the bath room and the kitchen can be constructed on the side opening towards the side of the railway line. ( 12 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the plaintiff is not properly looked after by the children and she is entitled to her half share demarcated. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY there shall be a final decree directing the allotment of the portion marked 1 in the plan marked annexure D to the report of the local commissioner covered by DCBE to the plaintiff. The defendants shall hand over possession of the portion to the plaintiff within two months from today. ( 14 ) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 3 shall be at liberty to put up a bath room and latrine in the other portion BAEF within two months from tills date, as suggested by the local commissioner. On production of the copy of the decree, L and D. O. and other authorities shall grant necessary permission to the plaintiff and defendants 1,3 and 5 for making appropriate alterations on the basis of the final decree. The plan annexure D shall form part of the final decree. No costs. ( 15 ) SUIT No. 1369/95 stands disposed of. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff Smt. Raj Kumari Srivastava had filed suit No. 1590/93 for mandatory injunction. ( 17 ) IN view of the developments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff represented that the plaintiff is not pressing this suit. No costs. ( 15 ) SUIT No. 1369/95 stands disposed of. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff Smt. Raj Kumari Srivastava had filed suit No. 1590/93 for mandatory injunction. ( 17 ) IN view of the developments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff represented that the plaintiff is not pressing this suit. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, suit No. 1590/93 is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. ( 19 ) WHAT remains is suit No. 2080/94. This is a suit filed by Sh. Amrish Srivastava for partition against his brother Sh. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (1st defendant) and his mother Smt. Raj Kumari Srivastava (2nd defendant) and Smt. Kiran Devi (3rd defendant) and Lt. Governor as the 4th defendant. As I had pointed out earlier the plaintiff Sh. Amrish Srivastava claims rights only through the third defendant. There is a dispute between plaintiff and me first defendant on the one hand and me third defendant on the other. The right to 50% of the second defendant Smt. Raj Kumari Srivastava cannot wait indefinitely for the determination of their rights. Therefore. 1 have passed a final decree in suit No. 1369/95. The resultant position is that in suit No. 2080/94 on the subject matter will be that portion marked BAEF and whatever the ultimate decision in this case plaintiff, first defendant and the third defendant would be entitled to only that portion. Post suit No. 2080/94 on 16th of October 1996 for further proceedings.