REVA KHETRAPAL, J. ( 1 ) THE present suit is for partition in respect of constructed property measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas forming part of khasra bearing no. 141/27/1 situate in Village Basant, P. O. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi between the plaintiffs no. 1 to 6 and the defendants no. 1 to 6 as per their respective shares derived on the demise of their predecessors-in-interests as co-owners of the aforesaid property. A decree for permanent injunction is also prayed for in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no. 4 to 6 from transferring or alienating/creating third party interest in the aforesaid property in any manner till the respective shares of the parties are defined by this Court. ( 2 ) THE facts succinctly stated are that Shri Hirday Ram and Hari Singh were the joint owners/bhumidars of the suit property having one-half undivided share in the aforesaid land. Shri Kali Ram succeeded to the estate of his deceased father Shri Hirday Ram and after his demise, defendants no. 4 to 6, namely, Shri Shiv Narayan, his son, two daughters, namely, Smt. Shanta and smt. Kanta Devi succeeded to the estate of their deceased father to the extent of one-half undivided share in the land measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas which is part of khasra no. 141/27/1. Shri Hari Singh, who was the other co-owner to the extent of one-half undivided share, after his death, left behind his three sons, namely, (i) Shri Shiv Charan (ii) Shri Ranjit and (iii) Shri Basti Ram. Shri shiv Charan, son of late Shri Hari Singh, died on 25. 04. 1993 and left behind three daughters, namely, Smt. Kiran Devi (plaintiff no. 1), Smt. Gyan Devi (plaintiff no. 2) and Smt. Har Nandi (since deceased) besides his widow Smt. Ram kali. Smt. Ram Kali, widow of Shri Shiv Narayan died on 19. 01. 1999, leaving behind no other legal heirs except those mentioned hereinabove. Smt Har Nandi, daughter of late Shri Shiv Charan, on her death left behind her two daughters, namely, Smt. Babita and Smt. Babli and one son namely Sunil (defendants no. 1 to 3 herein ). Shri Ranjit Singh, the second son of late Shri Hari Singh died as a bachelor and Shri Basti Ram, the third son of late Shri Hari Singh died on 7. 8. 1 to 3 herein ). Shri Ranjit Singh, the second son of late Shri Hari Singh died as a bachelor and Shri Basti Ram, the third son of late Shri Hari Singh died on 7. 8. 1996, leaving behind him three sons, namely, Shri Sant Ram, Shri Raj Kumar (plaintiff no. 3) and Shri Giri Raj (plaintiff no. 4 ). Shri Sant Ram expired on 10. 4. 1996, leaving behind him two sons, namely, Shri Deepak and Shri Ashok (plaintiffs no. 5 and 6) as his legal heirs. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS state that out of the land measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas which is part of khasra no. 141/27/1 situate in Village Basant Nagar, P. O. Vasant vihar, New Delhi, 12 biswas of the land was constructed by the co-owners and the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are in possession of the constructed portion of the land measuring 250 sq. yards (approx.) shown in green in the site plan annexed as annexure-H to the plaint. Plaintiffs no. 3 to 6 are in possession of the constructed portion of the area measuring 250 sq. yards (approx.) shown in blue in the said site plan. Defendants no. 4 to 6 are stated to be in possession of the constructed portion of the property shown in red colour in the said site plan annexed. The open land left over is 2 bighas and 1 biswas. The said land belongs to all the co-owners as per their respective shares. Thus, the plaintiffs along with defendants no. 1 to 6 are the co-sharers/landlords/bhumidars in the land measuring 2 bighas and 1 biswa which is part of khasra no. 141/27/1, situate in Village Basant Nagar, but the demarcation of their respective shares has not been done till date. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that on account of the fact that the land has not been partitioned amongst the co-owners, defendant no. 4 is creating trouble for all the co-owners with the connivance and collusion of the local police as well as other officials from the revenue department. It is further alleged that the revenue authorities have illegally issued jamabandi letter dated 8. 1. 2004 in the name of defendant no. 4 without complying with the provisions of law and without giving any notice to other co-owners of the property. Copy of the said jamabandi dated 8. 1. It is further alleged that the revenue authorities have illegally issued jamabandi letter dated 8. 1. 2004 in the name of defendant no. 4 without complying with the provisions of law and without giving any notice to other co-owners of the property. Copy of the said jamabandi dated 8. 1. 2004 is annexed with the plaint as Annexure-J. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have issued notice dated 18. 11. 2002 under Section 80 of the Code of civil Procedure and also other provisions of law to the DDA, the officials of the revenue department and others for cancellation of mutation and also claiming damages from them, which notice has been duly served on the said parties. It is stated that revenue authorities have no right to mutate the property when the demarcation of the property has not been done nor the property has been partitioned amongst the co-owners/bhumidars. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs also, the revenue authorities have issued the jamabandi as per the provisions of law in the names of late Shri Kali Ram, son of Hirday Ram; late Shri Shiv Charan, late Shri Basti Ram and late Shri ranjit Singh; all sons of late Shri Hari Singh. The said jamabandi is for the year 1960-61 and is enclosed with the plaint. ( 6 ) THE plaintiffs further state that the Land and Building department had issued notification for acquiring land measuring 981 bighas and 3 biswas including the land measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas which is part of khasra no. 141/27/1 and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector to this effect. Late Shri Kali Ram, father of defendants no. 4 to 6 filed a Civil Writ petition bearing C. W. No. 655/1966 in this High Court, and by judgment dated 15. 03. 1971 rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Rangarajan, the said award was quashed. No appeal having been filed against the judgment in Civil Writ Petition no. 655/1966, the said judgment has become final and binding. ( 7 ) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that defendants no. 4 to 6 as per their own admission in suit bearing No. 509/1992 for permanent injunction filed by them, titled as 'shiv Narayan Sharma Vs. Shiv Charan and Ors'. , in the court of civil Judge, Delhi, admitted that their share in the open land/property is 1 bigha and - biswas. 4 to 6 as per their own admission in suit bearing No. 509/1992 for permanent injunction filed by them, titled as 'shiv Narayan Sharma Vs. Shiv Charan and Ors'. , in the court of civil Judge, Delhi, admitted that their share in the open land/property is 1 bigha and - biswas. Copy of the plaint filed by defendants no. 4 to 6 is annexed with the present suit. Further, according to the plaintiffs, defendants no. 4 to 6 have admitted in Civil Writ Petition No. 653-D/66 decided on 15-3-1971 that they are co-owners of the open plot bearing khasra no. 141/27/1 measuring 1 bigha and - biswa situate in the revenue estate of Village Basant. However, plaintiffs allege that the defendants no. 4 to 6 are in possession of more than their share of the constructed portion of the property and that the defendant no. 4 wants to forcibly occupy the portion in possession of the plaintiffs as well. ( 8 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 did not care to contest the suit despite service of notice upon them by publication and were, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte in default of appearance. ( 9 ) IN the written statement filed by defendant no. 4, it is submitted by defendant no. 4 that his deceased father had constructed the building before the year 1966 on an area of 528 sq. yards falling in his half share of khasra no. 141/27/1 measuring 2-1 biswas, without any objection or demur and he is claiming only half-share measuring 1 bigha and - biswa and nothing more. It is categorically denied by defendant no. 4 that he is trying to grab the land of the plaintiffs and/or of anyone else. ( 10 ) IN the written statement filed by defendants no. 5 and 6, it is stated by the aforesaid defendants that they have relinquished their respective shares in favour of their real brother, defendant no. 4 Shri Shiv Narayan Sharma. Interestingly, however, the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 5 is not filed by defendant no. 5 Smt. Kanta, but by her so-called legal representative Shri Ram Chander Sharma on the ground that defendant no. 5 smt. Kanta, who executed the relinquishment deed in favour of defendant no. 4 Shiv narayan Sharma during her lifetime, had expired in April, 2003. The legal representatives of Smt. Kanta are, however, not on record. 5 Smt. Kanta, but by her so-called legal representative Shri Ram Chander Sharma on the ground that defendant no. 5 smt. Kanta, who executed the relinquishment deed in favour of defendant no. 4 Shiv narayan Sharma during her lifetime, had expired in April, 2003. The legal representatives of Smt. Kanta are, however, not on record. ( 11 ) ON completion of pleadings when the case was listed before this Court as is evident from the order dated 18th April, 2006 learned counsel for the parties stated that the shares of the parties are admitted and the parties are endeavouring to physically partition the vacant land. Time was sought by the parties to sort out the dispute inter se themselves. The said efforts having been proved futile, counsel for the defendants stated that he had no objection if a preliminary decree for partition was passed and the suit property was divided by metes and bounds. He, however, filed an application being I. A. No. 10300/2006 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 26 Rule 9 CPC praying for appointment of a revenue officer as local commissioner to carry out the demarcation for partition of the suit land. The said application was not opposed by counsel for the plaintiff and hence both parties were agreed that a competent revenue officer be appointed to carry out the demarcation for partition of the suit land. ( 12 ) IN the aforesaid facts and circumstances which are undisputed, a preliminary decree for partition by metes and bound of the suit land and the constructed property measuring 2 bighas and 13 biswas, which forms part of khasra no. 141/27/1 situate in village Basant, between the plaintiffs and the defendants no. 1 to 6 as per their respective shares is passed. One-half of the suit property shall devolve upon the legal representatives of late Shri Hirday ram and their descendants in equal shares i. e. defendant no. 4, defendant no. 5/or her legal representatives and defendant no. 6, i. e. , one-sixth share each. The remaining half of the property shall vest in equal shares on the surviving legal representatives and descendants of late Shri Hari Singh, namely, the legal representatives of late Shri Shiv Charan and the legal representatives of late shri Basti Ram. 4, defendant no. 5/or her legal representatives and defendant no. 6, i. e. , one-sixth share each. The remaining half of the property shall vest in equal shares on the surviving legal representatives and descendants of late Shri Hari Singh, namely, the legal representatives of late Shri Shiv Charan and the legal representatives of late shri Basti Ram. Thus, the share of late Shri Shiv Charan shall be divided in equal shares between his two surviving daughters namely the plaintiff No. 1 (1/12th share) and the plaintiff No. 2 (1/12th share) and the legal representatives of his deceased daughter Smt. Har Nandi viz. defendants No. 1 to 3 (1/12th share together ). The share of late Shri Basti Ram shall be divided in equal shares between his two surviving sons namely the plaintiff No. 3 (1/12th share) and the plaintiff No. 4 (1/12th share) and the legal representatives of his deceased son Shri Sant Ram viz. plaintiff No. 5 and 6 (1/12th share together ). In case, however, the plaintiff No. 5 and/or her legal representative and the plaintiff No. 6 relinquish their shares, the same shall devolve upon defendant No. 4 in accordance with the relinquishment deeds executed by them. ( 13 ) THE ADM (Revenue), government of NCT of Delhi is directed to appoint a competent revenue officer to carry out the demarcation for partition of the suit land within six weeks of the receipt of this order. The concerned revenue officer as Local Commissioner in this case shall be paid a fees of Rs. 15,000/-which shall be borne by the parties in the ratio of their respective shares as demarcated above. Report of the Local Commissioner shall be filed as expeditiously as possible. List the case for further proceedings on 23rd November, 2006.