T. S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for a permanent prohibitory injunction has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE suit property comprises a residential building bearing No. S-82, greater Kailash Part-I, New Delh. The plaintiffs' case, as set out in the plaint, is that the entire first floor and the front portion of the ground floor of the said building is in their peaceful occupation. The plaint sets out the background in which the said property was acquired by the plaintiffs from the owners thereof and relies upon the document of title allegedly executed in their favour.

( 3 ) A complete factual narrative and the manner in which the plaintiffs claim to have come in possession of the suit property is, in our opinion, unnecessary for the present, keeping in view the order that we propose to make in this appeal. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs' claim to be the owners in occupation of first floor of the property and a part of the ground floor as indicated earlier. Their further case is that the defendants are adopting fraudulent, unlawful and criminal methods including. forging title deeds qua the property and are trespassing upon the property with a view to illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs from the same. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants are trying to sell the property in question by fraudulent means to innocent third parties even when they have no salable right, title or interest in the same. The suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant in that backdrop prayed for a decree to prevent any such mischief. It sought an injunction restraining the defendants from claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property or disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the same. It also prayed for an injunction directing the respondents not to sell, transfer, alienate or encumber or part with the possession of any part of the property in dispute.

( 4 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendants, the allegations made by the plaintiffs were stoutly denied. It was alleged that although the defendants, who happen to be Afghan refugees were initially inducted as tenants in the property in the year 1984 by Smt. Vidyawati Bhatia, the owner/landlady, yet the property was subsequently sold by said Smt. Bhatia in favour of defendant No. 3, Sh. Yama Jadran in terms of a registered sale deed dated 19th February, 1990 for a consideration of Rs. 18 lacs. The sale made by Smt. Bhatia, during her lifetime was, according to the defendants, legally non-est as the vendor had no saleable interest in the suit property. To cut the long story short, the defendants claim to be the absolute owner in peaceful possession of the entire property situated at S-82, Greater kailash, New Delhi, except for one Asha Singh, tenant in the servants quarter in the ground floor of the said property. The allegations that the plaintiffs are in possession have been thus denied emphatically. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs had filed false criminal cases against the defendants despite which the plaintiffs continued to be in occupation till 6/7th February, 2003, when Sh. Rajeev Suri, the attorney of the plaintiffs, who, according to the defendants, is a known land grabber broke upon the door forcefully, entered into the first floor of the suit property with the help of local criminals and the S. H. O. , Police Station Greater Kailash-I, New delh. A complaint regarding the said incident has, according to the respondent, been filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police and is being investigated by the Vigilance Department. The defendants, with those allegations, prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed six issues and directed the plaintiffs to commence evidence. The plaintiffs had, in proof of the issues, the