- (1.)The present Regular First Appeal has been filed by the four Appellants namely Tikka Shatrujit Singh, Maharaj Kumar Amanjit Singh (Deceased), Smt. Gita Devi and Maharaj kumari Preeti Devi against the two Respondents namely Brig. Sukhjit Singh and Maharaj Kumari Gayatri Devi under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.09.2004 in Suit No. 1052/1977 whereby the suit of the Appellants was dismissed except in respect of the preliminary decree qua exhibit DA and PW-1/1. The appeal was admitted and the status quo order was maintained during the pendency of the present appeal.
(2.)The Respondent No. 1 and Appellant No. 3 are husband and wife and are parents of Appellant Nos. 1, 2 (sons) and Appellant No. 4 and Respondent No. 2 (daughters). The Appellant No. 2 died intestate and his estate is inherited by his mother Appellant No. 3 during the pendency of the suit.
(3.)Originally the Suit was filed by the Appellants seeking separation of the shares of the Plaintiffs after the partition of the joint properties. In para 8 of the Plaint, the details of the co-parcenary properties have been given which are as under:
(1) double-storey residential house bearing municipal No. 90-A, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi Delhi; (2) Commercial Flat No. 101 on the first floor of the building known as Surya Kiran situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; (3) a residential house known as Villa Bouna Vista and Cottage Villa Chalet, servant quarters, garages, etc. located in Village Chuharwal, Distt. Kapurthala; (4) a residential palace in Mussoorie known as 'Chateau' St. Helens, Mussoorie; (5) all movables including furniture, carpets, etc. lying in Villa Kapurthala, Chateau St. Helens , Mussoorie and in property in Greater Kailash; (6) all jewellery and valuables lying in the safes of Chateau, Mussoorie; (7) jewellery lying in locked brief case kept in locker No. 325, Gindlays Bank, 'H' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi; (8) jewellery lying in Societies General, Bouleward Haussmann, Paris, France; and (9) shares in joint stock companies, share certificates of which are lying in safe custody with the First National City Bank, Fort, Bombay. It is also pleaded that if there are some (sic) properties which are co-parcenary properties, of which the Plaintiffs for the present have no knowledge, if are found, they be also partitioned.

According to the Respondent No. 1's counsel

a)That the Plaintiffs and Defendants formed Hindu Undivided Family and all of them have been joint in estate and worship upto August 1976 and were joint in mess. Defendant No. 1 had deserted the family since August 1976 and has been residing at Gymkhana Club, New Delhi;

b) That the details of co-parcenary properties have been enumerated in para 8 of the plaint and it is prayed that if any other co-parcenary properties, of which the Plaintiffs for the present have no knowledge, if are found, they be also partitioned;

c) That on or about January 13, 1977, the Defendant No. 1 had filed a suit in this Court against Plaintiff No. 3, praying for a declaration that the two properties namely, Villa at Kapurthala and the Chateau, Mussorie with all the movables lying therein are his personal and exclusive properties and the property at Greater Kailash, B 90-A is also owned exclusively by him, acquired from his personal fund sand the jewelries lying in different places in the properties, enumerated in the plaint is owned by him;

d) That the Defendant No. 1, karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (for short the 'HUF' has set up wrongful claims to the co-parcenary properties and has thus committed a gross misconduct resulting into the Plaintiffs' seeking the relief of partition of the joint family/co-parcenary properties. The grandfather of the Defendant No. 1 had succeeded to the Gaddi of Kapurthala as a male heir, constituting a valuable property right carrying privileges, title and monetary benefits and all the properties of the Gaddi including the income attached to the Gaddi were ancestral properties in his hands and the property acquired by grand father wit the aid of any impartible estate became ancestral properties, governed by law of inheritance, applicable to the Mitakshara School and the great grand father of the Plaintiffs 1 & 2 had built Chateau St. Helens at Mussorie with the aid of ancestral funds and the properties acquired with the aid of any impartible estate by the great grandfather or the grandfather of Plaintiffs 1 & 2 became HUF properties and the Defendant No. 1 and his father had not acquired any property with the aid of any privy purse and even if they did so, the same also at any rate became HUF co-parcenary properties as any property acquired wit the aid of impartible estate would become joint property with all the incidents of co-parcenary attached to it and all the jewelleries as well as the pieces of art, etc. are ancestral properties;

e) That some of the properties have been acquired by Defendant No. 1 from the compensation received by Defendant No. 1 in respect of the zamindari rights which were ancestral properties and also from the sale proceeds of the palace at Kapurthala.