JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.- The plaintiff seeks a decree for partition for dividing the suit property in which she claims a 2/3rd shares and states that the balance 1/3rd share belong to defendants 1 and 2. 2. The facts as set out in the plaint are that one Nand Kishore Datta, the Plaintiffs father had purchased Plot No. 104, Block B-1, Janak Puri, New Delhi, measuring 126 sq. mtrs., through perpetual lease deed dated 5.6.1969, through the Delhi Development Authority(DDA). During his lifetime Shri Datta constructed a three storeyed structure on the plot. The said Sh. Datta was married to Ms. Shiv Kumari Datta. They had two children namely, the Plaintiff and one Ms. Kamini Bali. 3. Sh. Nand Kishore Datta died on 28.4.2004. Ms. Kamini Bali, one of his two daughters, had pre-deceased him having expired on 12.8.2002. Said Nand Kishore Datta died intestate. The Plaintiff claims in Paragraph 4, inter alia, as follows: "That, after the death of late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta the mother of plaintiff i.e., Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta relinquished her share in the aforesaid property in the favour of the plaintiff vide her registered relinquishment deed dated 28th May, 2004, which was duly registered with the Registrar of Assurances, Sub-Division II, West District, Delhi, vide registered No. 9825, in additional Book No. 1, Vol. No. 11591, pages from 70 to 71 on 28th May, 2004. On the basis of said relinquishment deed and the affidavit and other documents filed by plaintiff and her mother, the aforesaid property mutated by the defendant No.3 in the name of plaintiff. It is relevant to mention here that along with her application for mutation, the Plaintiff also filed an affidavit dated 10th June, 2004 and Indemnity Bond dated 28.5.2004. Wherein, she declared that late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta is survived by only two legal heir i.e. the plaintiff and her mother. The said affidavit was sworn by the plaintiff under the mistaken advice that since her sister died during the lifetime of her father, therefore, the plaintiff and her mother are the only legal heirs with respect to the immovable assets of late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta. The plaintiff thereafter avers that her assumption was wrong since she became aware that by Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, the late Shiv Kumari Datta could have only 1/3rd right on the death of Nand Kishore Datta. Nand Kishore Datta. The plaintiff thereafter avers that her assumption was wrong since she became aware that by Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, the late Shiv Kumari Datta could have only 1/3rd right on the death of Nand Kishore Datta. It is, therefore, claimed that the Defendants being the sons of pre-deceased defendants are entitled to II 6th share. The Plaintiff further avers as follows- However, under the mistaken advice the plaintiff applied for mutation of this property in her name with the DDA under the presumption that except the plaintiff and her mother there is no other legal heir survive on the date of mutation in her favour. In fact, throughout this, the plaintiff was under the constant belief that in case of demise of her father only the plaintiff, her sister and mother are the only legal heirs. Since, plaintiff sister was pre-deceased by the time her father expired on 28th March, 2004. Therefore, on the date of filing of mutation application on 22nd June, 2004, there was no other legal heirs of the deceased late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta, except, the plaintiff and her mother Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta, who also expired after the mutation of this property in favour of plaintiff on 6th February, 2005. 4. On the basis of the above affidavit it is averred that the Plaintiff applied for conversation of the property into free-hold which was permitted by the DDA and the Conveyance Deed was executed on 31.5.2007. The Plaintiff also alleges that during the lifetime of Smt. Shiv Kumar Datta the Defendants had not raised any disputes concerning mutation of the property in her name and that they started objecting to the mutation after death on of Shiv Kumari Datta, 6.2.2005. It is alleged that the Defendants complained to the DDA, about legality of the mutation and the latter caused a notice to be issued on 19.7.2007 for determining the lease deed and for cancellation of mutation. The Plaintiff further alleged that in her reply to the DDA on 3.8.2007, she admitted to mistaken advice and did not want to deprive the Defendants of their legal entitlements. It is further alleged that Shiv Kumar Datta did not want to give any share or rights in the suit prperty to the Defendants due to the conduct of their father, i.e. the husband of late Smt. Kamini Bali. 5. It is further alleged that Shiv Kumar Datta did not want to give any share or rights in the suit prperty to the Defendants due to the conduct of their father, i.e. the husband of late Smt. Kamini Bali. 5. The Plaintiff claims to be occupying the first and second floor of the house; the ground floor is in the occupation and possession of the Defendants. It is claimed that the Plaintiff is entitled to 2/3rd share in the property; the cause of action to file to file the suit is alleged to have arisen on 11.6.2007 when the Defendants complained to the DDA against the mutation and it subsequently arose on 19.7.2007 when the DDA issued show cause notice for cancellation of the lease. A decree of partition dividing the house property in the ratio of 2/3rd in the share of the Plaintiff and balance 1/3rd in favour of the Defendants is, therefore, sought; the consequential decree for permanent injunction was also sought against the DDA for cancelling the lease deed. However, that relief was given up and the DDA was deleted from the array of parties. 6. The Defendants in their common written statement alleged that the suit is an abuse of law, having been filed with ulterior motives. It is also allege that the Plaintiff has concealed material facts. The Defendants impeached the relinquishment deed dated 25.5.2004 as being a nullity and unenforceable as Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta was not owner of the share of the suit property and, therefore, not entitled to relinquish it in favour of the Plaintiff. 7. It is also alleged that since the relinquishment deed did not have any legal validity the subsequent events like mutation/conversion etc. also deserved to be ignored. It is alleged that the Plaintiff in presenting in affidavit claimed to be the exclusive owner of the property and after making such declarations, and eventually succeeded in securing mutation, thus showing her ill-intention. The Defendants, therefore, dispute that the Plaintiff ever had any intention of conceding their share. They further claim 50% of the suit property. 8. It is alleged that the Plaintiff in presenting in affidavit claimed to be the exclusive owner of the property and after making such declarations, and eventually succeeded in securing mutation, thus showing her ill-intention. The Defendants, therefore, dispute that the Plaintiff ever had any intention of conceding their share. They further claim 50% of the suit property. 8. The defendants also allege that the Plaintiff, despite being aware about the occupation of the ground floor by them and their parents for the last 30 years or more, kept them in the dark about the true state of affairs and on the other hand, alleging mistaken advice proceeded to claim the entire property. It is stated that had it not been by sheer providence when the defendants became aware of the communication addressed by the DDA, the Plaintiff would have sought to take advantage of her false declarations. The defendants further state that the allegations against their father are baseless. They also rely on the reply by the Plaintiff to the show-cause notice issued by the DDA where she did not advert about their mother i.e. her late sister, a legal heir of the original lessee in Class I of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act and instead made false allegations. 9. The Defendants deny the Plaintiffs entitlement to 2/3rd share and for these reasons allege that the suit is liable to be rejected as not disclosing any cause of action. 10. In support of the suit the Plaintiff filed a copy of the Perpetual Lease deed dated 5.6.1969 and a copy of the Relinquishment Deed executed by late Shiv Kumari Datta; a copy of the registered Indemnity Bond executed by her on 28.5.2004, a copy of the affidavit dated 10.6.2004 executed by her and filed with the DDA, a copy of the Occupancy Certificate dated 12.10.1972 issued by the DDA; a copy of show cause notice issued to the Plaintiff on 19.7.2007 by the DDA and the reply to the said show cause notice by her. 11. On 26.3.2008 Counsel for the parties submitted that only two issues arise for determination and that the Court could dispose of the suit at this stage after considering their arguments. Counsel also stated that there was no need to record oral evidence. Accordingly the said two issues were framed as follows: 1. 11. On 26.3.2008 Counsel for the parties submitted that only two issues arise for determination and that the Court could dispose of the suit at this stage after considering their arguments. Counsel also stated that there was no need to record oral evidence. Accordingly the said two issues were framed as follows: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in law, as claimed by the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition and, if so, to what share? FINDINGS Issue No.1 12. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands. Counsel for the defendant placed considerable reliance upon the documents filed with the suit. It was submitted that the plaintiff had a dishonest intention of depriving the defendants of any share in the property. As a consequence, she engineered a situation whereby her late mother, on being convinced that she had a half share in the property, relinquished it in favour of the plaintiff. The reality, however, was that the plaintiffs mother - who also happened to the grand-mother of the defendants and the mother of their mother - possessed only one third share in the property. The plaintiff succeeded in her evil designs to secure a document and sought for its effectuation by applying to the DDA and securing mutation of the property, claiming to be the sale owner entitled to all the rights. 13. Learned Counsel for the defendant urged that the suit does not disclose any cause of action as the plaintiff is a wrong-doer. He relied upon the paragraph in the plaint and submitted that the reason for approaching the Court is palpably false; it can never be called as a legitimate cause of action. Counsel submitted that the excuse given by the plaintiff about her becoming aware of the real rights of the defendants, cannot be accepted because it is completely inconsistent with her assertion, contained in the affidavit. Indemnity Bond, and reply to show cause notice furnished to the DDA. In all these, the stand taken by her was that she alone was sole owner of the property on the basis of her pre-existing right and the relinquishment deed, executed by her late mother. 14. Indemnity Bond, and reply to show cause notice furnished to the DDA. In all these, the stand taken by her was that she alone was sole owner of the property on the basis of her pre-existing right and the relinquishment deed, executed by her late mother. 14. It is submitted that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to commit fraud on the basis of an alleged mistaken advice; learned Counsel submitted that ignorance of law is no excuse or a defence for a wrongdoer. Counsel submitted that the connivance and fraud played by the plaintiff is evident from the entire chain of events which cannot be overlooked by this Court by accepting her plea about mistaken advice. The plaintiff was aware that her mother was not owner of 50 per cent share in the property; she could therefore not have validly claimed to be full owner of the entire property, knowing full well that the defendants, who are children of a pre-deceased heir to the property, had an equal share in it. It was submitted that these facts show that the plaintiffs intention was to somehow deprive the defendants of any rights to the property, in spite of her awareness about their occupation and possession of the ground-floor in the property for the past 30 years or so. It was submitted that one of the cardinal rules of law is that the judicial process cannot be abused by a canny litigant and that fraud unravels all transactions. Having played fraud on the defendants, the plaintiff cannot now seek the aid of the Court to claim so-called legal rights. 15. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Counsel for the plaintiff denied the submission on behalf of the defendant. He submitted that the suit is maintainable and discloses a triable cause of action. Whatever may have been the plaintiffs understanding about the extent of a share, previously, in the property, the moment she came to know the true extent of her entitlements, she asserted it and seeks partition of the property on that basis. Counsel stated that allegations about fraud and wrong-doing are utterly baseless and without foundation. In every partition suit between co-owners claiming rights as against each other, the Court has to determine the extent of each ones shareholding and make appropriate orders for the sale of such property. Counsel stated that allegations about fraud and wrong-doing are utterly baseless and without foundation. In every partition suit between co-owners claiming rights as against each other, the Court has to determine the extent of each ones shareholding and make appropriate orders for the sale of such property. The question of the Court rejecting the suit on alleged grounds of fraud or misrepresentation does not arise. Learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiff never intended to exclude the defendants rights. The only question which the Court has to address itself is inter se shares of the parties to the suit, properties. 16. From the facts adverted to earlier, it is amply clear that the plaintiff, her mother and the defendants mother, belonged to the family of the original Lessor, i.e. late Nand Kishore Datta. During his lifetime, the defendants mother, his daughter died. Soon thereafter, Nand Kishore Datta also died. Upon his death, the suit property devolved into three equal shares. One went to his widow, who at that time was alive; one third went to the plaintiff and the other devolved on the defendants equally, as heirs of a predeceased daughter. 17. The heirs of Nand Kishore Datta thus had joint interest in the property, under law. In such circumstance, the plaintiffs conduct, howsoever reprehensible even assuming the allegations of wrong-doing on her part to be true cannot yet deprive her the share which she would be entitled to, or the right to get it determined, in accordance with law. 18. One of the cardinal principles of law governing co-sharers of family property in India is that the institution of a partition suit by a member of the family, is an unequivocal intimation of the intention to separate. The filing of the suit signifies the severance. A decree then becomes necessary for working out the results of such severance and for allotting definite shares, as change of status of the plaintiff a co-owner with separate interest in the joint property is brought about. (Girja Bai v. Sadashiv, AIR 1916 PC 104; Ramamurthy v. Venkatasubbarayudu, AIR 1954 AP 34). 19. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the issue has to be answered in favour of the plaintiff; the suit is maintainable. Issue No.2 20. For a proper appreciation of this issue, it is necessary at this stage to notice the relevant documents. 19. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the issue has to be answered in favour of the plaintiff; the suit is maintainable. Issue No.2 20. For a proper appreciation of this issue, it is necessary at this stage to notice the relevant documents. The relinquishment deed was executed by the plaintiffs mother; it reads as follows: "RELINQUISHMENT DEED-Whereas the late Shri Nand Kishore Datta s/o Late Sh. Brij Lal Datta R/o B-l/104, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110 058, (hereinafter called the allottee/Lessee had been allotted plot bearing No. 104, Block-B-1, situated at Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereafter called the plot) vide letter No. F-6(142) 68 LAB (R), vide perpetual Lease Deed regd. at SI. No. 2588, in Addl. No.1, Volume No. 24 on pages 1780 to 175 on 23.6.1969 before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. And whereas the Allottee/Lesee had died on 28.3.2004, at Amar Lila Hospital, Jankpuri, New Delhi, and is survived by the following legal heirs: Sr. Name Age Relationship Residential Address No. with the deceased 1. Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta 77 yrs Wife B-l/104,Janakpuri New Delhi-58 2. Mrs. Kanan B-l/10, Janakpuri, New Bakshi 42 yrs. DaughterDelhi-58 And whereas (50%) share in the plot has devolved upon the Releasor upon the demise of the allottee/lessee. And whereas the Releasor(s) wishes/ wish to relinquish his/their share in the plot as mentioned herein above in favour of Mrs. Kanan Bakshi w/o Rajinder Kumar Bakshi d/o late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta who is also the legal heir of the allottee/lease. Pursuant to her wish mentioned above, the Releasor hereby release a relinquish all her share in the plot the hereby declares and affirm(s) that she or her heirs, successors, executor and administrators shall have no claim, right or interest in the plot and the same shall vest absolutely in Mrs. Kanan Bakshi w/o Rajinder Kumar Bakshi and d/o late Nand Kishore Datta the releasee." 21. After the death of Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta, the plaintiff filed an indemnity bond, as well as an affidavit while claiming mutation of the property; she has produced them. The indemnity bond reads as follows: "INDEMNITY BOND Whereas in the re cords of the lessor the land bearing plot No. 104, situated in Janakpuri. New Delhi-58, Block No.1 of the residential scheme, New Delhi and measuring 126 sq. mtrs. The indemnity bond reads as follows: "INDEMNITY BOND Whereas in the re cords of the lessor the land bearing plot No. 104, situated in Janakpuri. New Delhi-58, Block No.1 of the residential scheme, New Delhi and measuring 126 sq. mtrs. Stand in the name of my father Shri Nand Kishore Datta by virtue of perpetual lease deed registered as document No. 2588 entered in Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.1994 at pages 170 to 175 on 23.6.1999 with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, New Delhi vide letter No. F-6(142)68 LAB(R)/And Whereas my father the said Shri Nand Kishore Datta died on 28.3.2004 leaving behind the following legal heirs: Sr. Name Age Relationship Residential Address No. with the deceased 1.Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta 77 yrs Wife B-l/104, JanakpuriNew Delhi –58 2. Mrs. Kanan Bakshi 42 yrs. Daughter B-l/10, Janakpuri, New Delhi. He had not left any Registered/unregistered WILL. And whereas I am now the sole claimant to the said land and have filed an affidavit to that effect. And whereas on my application to the lessor to substitute in its records my name in place of the name of my father deceased lessee/ allottee Shri Nand Kishore Datta in respect of the said land, the Delhi Development Authority has agreed to do so my first executing Bond to Indemnity the Lessor against all losses or damages which it may sustain by reason of any claims which may be set up by other persons claiming to be the heirs of my deceased father Shri Nand Kishore Datta. Whereas in consideration of the aforesaid agreement, the Executant Mrs. Kanan Bakshi w/o Sh. Rajinder Bakshi d/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta R/o B-104, Janakpuri, New Delhi? 58 and her legal hiers, successors, executors and administrators jointly and severally undertake to keep lessor harmless and indemnified against all claims whatsoever against the aforesaid plot of land or in respect thereon together with all interest, loss, damages, penalty, action an d demand and cost of all kind, whatsoever arising out of this transfer/mutation." The affidavit, filed on the same date with the DDA, is extracted below: "AFFIDAVIT 1. That Shri Nand Kishore Datta aged 42 years R/o B-l/1-4,Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 was allottee/lessee of Plot No. 104 Block No. I, in Janakpuri, New Delhi-l10058 vide letter No. F-6(142)68 LAB (R) vide perpetual lease deed dated 23.6.69 in Addl. Book No.1 Regd. That Shri Nand Kishore Datta aged 42 years R/o B-l/1-4,Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 was allottee/lessee of Plot No. 104 Block No. I, in Janakpuri, New Delhi-l10058 vide letter No. F-6(142)68 LAB (R) vide perpetual lease deed dated 23.6.69 in Addl. Book No.1 Regd. as No. 2588 Volume No. 1094 at Pages 170 to 175. 2. That Shri Nand Kishore Datta S/o Sh. Brij Lal Datta was my father. 3. That the said Shri Nand Kishore Datta had died on 28.3.2004 at Amar Lila Hospital, New Delhi without leaving any Will. That said late Shri Nand Kishore Datta is survived by the following g legal heirs: Sr.Name Age Relationship Residential Address No. with the deceased 1. Smt. Shiv Kumari Datta 77 yrs Wife B-1/104, Janakpuri New Delhi -58 2. Mrs. Kanan Bakshi 42 yrs. Daughter B-1/10, Janakpuri, New Delhi. 5. That the mother of the deceased allottee/lessee is not alive. 6. That I shall abide by the terms and conditions of allotment/sublease deed/lease deed. 7. That I shall abide by the terms and condition s of mutation, in case it is found out that the same had been obtained by fraud, misstatement or concealment of facts. 8. That said property/plot No. B-1/104, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 is at present free from all encumbrances and had been mortgaged earlier for which NOC/redemption deed is being submitted." 22. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff is that the late Shiv Kumari Datta had no doubt mentioned about her understanding that her share in the property was 50%. Though that was an erroneous understanding, yet her intention was clear enough; she wanted her share whatever be it, to devolve on the plaintiff. The plaintiffs Counsel further argues that even though she had mentioned in the affidavit to the DDA and indemnity bond, that she was exclusive owner of the entire property, however, as soon as she became aware of the true state of affairs, she has approached the Court, and seeks only two third share of the property. It was contended that the Court should always construe a document in such a manner so as to give effect to the intention of the person executing it. If that approach were to be adopted, the intention of late Shiv Kumari Datta to give her share to the plaintiff should be respected and a decree should be drawn in that regard. 23. If that approach were to be adopted, the intention of late Shiv Kumari Datta to give her share to the plaintiff should be respected and a decree should be drawn in that regard. 23. The relinquishment deed recites that the releaser, i.e. Shiv Kumari Datta and the plaintiff were the only heirs of the deceased Nand Kishore Datta. Yet the fact remained that upon his death, the said Lessor had other heirs. The plaintiff and Shiv Kumari Dutta were two heirs; the others were the children of his pre-deceased daughter, ie. the defendants in this case. Now, by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereafter the Act) the defendants, being Class I heirs (son of a predeceased daughter) of Nand Kishore Datta, were also heirs and entitled to their deceased mothers 1/3rd share, equally, by operation of Rule 3 of the Distribution of property amongst heirs in Class I of the Schedule, according to Section 10. Therefore, the late Shiv Kumari Datta could not have dealt with property which was clearly not owned by her. 24. The intention of late Shiv Kumari Datta is apparent from the following statement in the relinquishment deed: "And whereas (50%) share in the plot has devolved upon the Releasor upon the demise of the allottee/lessee. And whereas the Releasor(s) wishes/wish to relinquish his/their share in the plot as mentioned herein above in favour of Mrs. Kanan Bakshi w/o Rajinder Kumar Bakshi D/o late Sh. Nand Kishore Datta who is also the legal heir of the allottee/ lease. " She chose to relinquish and give all her rights in respect of the property on this understanding. The subsequent condition binding all her successors, assigns, etc. merely manifested her intention to release her share in the plot as mentioned herein above in favour of the plaintiff. 25. It is a fairly well settled principle of law that the Court while interpreting a document must read it as a whole in order to ascertain the intention of the creator. A stray sentence or some condition cannot be used or given effect in isolation, in a manner that frustrates the intent so discerned. 25. It is a fairly well settled principle of law that the Court while interpreting a document must read it as a whole in order to ascertain the intention of the creator. A stray sentence or some condition cannot be used or given effect in isolation, in a manner that frustrates the intent so discerned. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Vidhyadhar v. Manikar, III (1999) SLT 70=II (1999) CLT 184 (SC)= AIR 1999 SC 1441 ; Biswanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 432 and B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka, II (2008) SLT 570=1 (2008) CLT 362 (SC)=C.A. 1320/ 2008 decided on 15th February, 2008 by the Supreme Court). Unlike a Will, where the Court has an obligation to save a bequest as far as it is possible, in the case of a transfer of property inter vivos, the validity of the document has to be gauged in its own terms. 26. In IRC v. Raphael, 1935 AC 96, it was held that: "It must be remembered at the outset that the Court, while it seeks to give effect to the intention of the parties, must give effect to that intention as expressed, that is, it must ascertain the meaning of the words actually used." 27. Courts have also evolved the principle that what is granted cannot be taken away. A clear disposition in an earlier clause cannot be withdrawn and cut down by a later clause (Sahebzada Mohd. Kamgarh Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deb, (1960) 3 SCR 604 ; Ram Kishore Lal v. Kamal Narain, AIR 1963 SC 890 and Forbes v. GIT, (1922) 1 AC 256). Properly applied, this would mean that the intention of the releaser to deal with 50% of the property could not have been cut down by the later clause. The intention was always to deal with, and relinquish the share, as known to Shiv Kumari Datta. 28. If one considers the facts of this case from the above perspective, it is clear that the content of the relinquishment by late Shiv Kumari Datta had to be read in its own terms; she clearly meant to give a 50% share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff too knew that to be the extent of her share, and wrote to the DDA in at least two documents, i.e. an Affidavit and Indemnity Bond. The plaintiff too knew that to be the extent of her share, and wrote to the DDA in at least two documents, i.e. an Affidavit and Indemnity Bond. These are contrary to the position taken now, that the late Shiv Kumari Dattas deed should be construed as to mean her intention to give only what she had. Clearly, that construction is not possible. 29. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that upon the death of Nand Kishore Datta, the estate devolved in three parts; one part each falling to the share of the plaintiff and Shiv Kumari Datta and the other, in two equal shares devolving on the defendants. Shiv Kumari Datta could not have dealt with the defendants property; the property was undivided and, therefore, they had equal rights over the whole plot. The relinquishment deed however purported to transfer part of their share, which was clearly impermissible. The intention of the releaser was premised on her understanding that the defendants were not heirs, which was mistaken; they had a share equal to hers. Whether she would have acted otherwise if the true state of affairs were known to her is a matter of speculation, but for purposes of this suit it is sufficient to note that such a possibility existed. In any case, she could not have dealt with their share; the relinquishment deed therefore could not operate to convey any title to the plaintiff. Consequently upon her death, the plaintiff and the defendants became entitled to her 1/3rd share equally; the result is that both are entitled to a half (1/2) share each in the property. The issue is answered accordingly. Relief: 30. In the light of the above discussion, the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the property. The defendants are also entitled to a half share, devolving equally on each of them, to the suit property. 31. Accordingly this Court issues a preliminary decree in the above terms, whereby the plaintiff is entitled to one half share in the suit property; the defendants shall be entitled to the other half, in equal proportion. Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, Chamber No. 346-A, Delhi High Court (Mob. 9810292253 is appointed as Local Commissioner to conduct an inquiry and report to the Court as to the feasibility of partitioning the property, in the above terms, by metes and bounds. Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate, Chamber No. 346-A, Delhi High Court (Mob. 9810292253 is appointed as Local Commissioner to conduct an inquiry and report to the Court as to the feasibility of partitioning the property, in the above terms, by metes and bounds. The fee of the Local Commissioner is tentatively fixed at Rs. 30,000/ -. The Commissioner shall submit his report, after ascertaining the views of the parties, and inspecting the property, within 8 weeks. Let a decree in the above terms be drawn. 32. List on 22.7.2008 for considering the report of the Local Commissioner. Order Dasti. Ordered accordingly.