Court upholds Will dated 5th December 2000, favoring Defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs' claims denied.

The court upheld the genuineness of the Will dated 5th December 2000, favoring Defendant No. 1. As a result, the Plaintiffs were denied the reliefs claimed in the suit. The court found the Plaintiffs had concealed material facts, including another purported Will, leading to a dismissal of their claims. The suit was not barred by res judicata, and the valuation and limitation issues were decided against the Plaintiffs. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their claims for ownership, partition, and injunction for the properties, leading to the dismissal of the suit without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of half portions of the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi.
2. Preliminary and final decree of partition by metes and bounds for the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi.
3. Permanent injunction for the property at B-10, West End, New Delhi.
4. Ownership of property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
5. Decree for possession of property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
6. Permanent injunction for property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
7. Validity of the Will dated 5th December 2000.
8. Effect if the Will is found genuine.
9. Authorization of the plaint signing and verification.
10. Concealment of material facts and documents by the Plaintiffs.
11. Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.
12. Suit barred by res judicata.
13. Proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction.
14. Limitation for the relief of declaration for property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. (vii): Validity of the Will dated 5th December 2000
The court examined the genuineness of the Will propounded by Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 presented the original Will and evidence from two attesting witnesses. The Plaintiffs objected, arguing the Will was unnatural and fabricated, citing harmonious relationships and suspect witnesses. However, the court found the objections insufficient to discredit the Will, noting no dispute on the deceased's signature or sound mind. The court concluded the Will was genuine.

Issue No. (viii): Effect if the Will is found genuine
Given the Will's validity, the court determined that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit due to the Will's provisions favoring Defendant No. 1.

Issue No. (x): Concealment of material facts and documents by the Plaintiffs
The court found that the Plaintiffs concealed material facts, including a purported Will dated 22nd December 2000, and failed to produce it in court. The Plaintiffs' actions amounted to fraud, impacting their credibility and claims.

Issue No. (xii): Suit barred by res judicata
The court held that the previous suit's dismissal for non-prosecution does not bar the present suit under res judicata principles. The earlier suit's dismissal was not on merits, allowing the current suit to proceed.

Issue No. (xiii): Proper valuation for court fee and jurisdiction
Defendant No. 1 claimed the suit was undervalued, but failed to provide evidence. The court decided this issue against Defendant No. 1, affirming the suit's valuation.

Issue No. (xiv): Limitation for the relief of declaration for property No. 510, Suryakiran Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi
The court found the suit for declaration of ownership of the property beyond the period of limitation, as the Plaintiffs were aware of the property's transfer to Defendant No. 1 in the earlier suit.

Issues No. (i) to (vi): Ownership, partition, and injunction for properties
Based on the Will's validity and the limitation finding, the court decided these issues against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to ownership, partition, or injunction for the properties in question.

Conclusion:
The suit was dismissed, with no costs awarded. The Will dated 5th December 2000 was upheld as genuine, and the Plaintiffs' claims were denied based on the Will and other findings.

---