Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

This first appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29th February 2015 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil suit No. 15-A/2011 whereby the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.

2. Appellant/plaintiff filed suit for declaration that the plaintiff has acquired valid title and is in possession of the property in dispute after purchasing the same, for valuable consideration and is entitled to mutation of his name in place of respondent No.4. The plaintiff also sought declaration that the defendants had no interest or title in respect of the property in dispute and could not transfer the same to defendant No.3 or any other person by sale and further that a sale made in favour of defendants No.3, and power of attorney is illegal and inoperative. The plaintiff also sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants that they be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The aforesaid relief’s was sought by the plaintiff on the pleadings that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 & 2 had executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 26.11.99 that upon receipt of Rs. 33 lacs, defendants would transfer their business, movable and immovable property and it was further pleaded that the defendants No.1 & 2 delivered the possession to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the property in dispute comprised of two shops, one shop No.34 at Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai and the other shop No. 8A at Dakshin Gangotri, Supela, Bhilai which, according to the plaintiff, was completely transferred in possession and title in their favour and they claimed to be in possession of the same. Further case of the plaintiff was that the defendants No.1 & 2 had agreed that after obtaining NOC from the Municipal Corporation, mutation would be completed. Further pleading was that it was agreed that a private limited company in the name of Millennium Bhilai Traders Pvt. Ltd would also be incorporated and defendant No.1 was made one of the Directors of the said Company. However, later on, it was pleaded that defendant No.1 taking undue advantage started misappropriating the assets where after he was removed from the office of Director, matter was reported to the police and criminal case was registered, charge sheet was filed.

3. It was further pleaded that the defendants did not transfer the shops in favour of the laintiff despite having already received Rs. 3,75,000/- in respect of each of the shop. The defendants 1 & 2 had filed civil suit No. 23A/2002 before the civil court seeking recovery of possession and it was dismissed for want of prosecution and the application for restoration was also dismissed. The defendant No.4 did not accept the prayer for mutation on the ground that the so called MOU dated 26.11.99 is not registered where after the plaintiff approached the office of District Registrar who also did not take any steps and then the plaintiff was compelled to file petition before the High Court which was disposed of with directions but finally the district Registrar returned the document without any registration. Plaintiff's came to know that taking undue advantage of the situation, defendants 1 & 2 are attempting to transfer the shops to third party and attempts have been made to dispossess the plaintiff and some of the anti-social elements arrived at the shop on 30.01.2008, and on complaint, a case was registered at police station Supela. Later on, they came to know that in respect of shop No.8A the defendant No.2 entered into agreement to sell with defendant No.3 and the Power of Attorney was also granted in his favour.

4. The respondents 1 & 2 filed their separate written statement in which they denied the plaintiff's case that there was any Memorandum of Understanding upon defendants receiving any money. Defendants also denied the pla