MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The plaintiff filed the suit on the allegations that the defendant No.1 along with defendants No.2 to 4 have dispossessed the plaintiff from the property bearing No.C-1 (old No.WZ-900/1) ad measuring 92 sq. yds. out of Khasra No.568/1 and 568/2 min. situated in the area of village Tihar abadi known as Fateh Nagar, Block-6, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). In this suit the plaintiff is seeking decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to remove his locks and the decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with use and enjoyment of the suit property.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

2. The plaintiff states that he had purchased the suit property from its previous owner Sh. Jai Prakash S/o Late Sh. Nanhu Ram, Resident of House No. 196, Village Tihar, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.27 lac vide Sale Deed dated 14.7.2011, bearing registration No. 18318 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 18930 on pages Nos. 27-32 on 22.7.2011. According to the plaintiff, at the time of the sale of the suit property the vendor Sh. Jai Prakash, claimed that he is the son of Sh Late Nanhu and that upon his death, the said property devolved upon Sh. Nanhu Ram’s widow, six sons and three daughters, who executed a General Power of Attorney to sell, receipt etc. in favour of Sh. Jai Prakash on 4.2.1988 and now he is in possession of the said property and the owner. It was further represented by the vendor Sh. Jai Prakash that the suit property was turned into residential use.

3. After the purchase of the suit property, plaintiff started renovation on the same on 13.8.2011 with help of hired laborers/masons. The plaintiff got the waste material lying in the suit premises removed and on 15th and 16th August 2011 foundation was raised erecting two rooms in the rear portion.

4. The Plaintiff states that on 16.8.2011 at about 5pm the plaintiff left for his house and thereafter the defendant No. 1 came with some anti-social persons and snatched the key of the main gate from the mason/labourers and removed plaintiff’s lock and instead put his own lock on the gate of the suit property. Since, the labourers did not have plaintiff’s phone number therefore, plaintiff could not be informed.

5. The plaintiff was informed only on 17.8.2011 when about 10.30 am he reached the suit property to supervise the work. The plaintiff immediately made a call to the PCR and informed about the incident. At about 11.30 am the local police including defendant Nos. 3 & 4 reached the spot and asked the plaintiff to accompany to the Hari Nagar police station. But on reaching the police station the plaintiff was asked to hand over his licensed revolver without any acknowledgement of the same and was kept confined at the police station till 7.30 pm.

6. Plaintiff avers that in the police station defendant Nos. 3 & 4 refused to see the registered sale deed and instead asked him to produce the vendor Sh. Jai Prakash and the attesting witness of the said sale deed. Whereas defendant No. 1 was not even asked to show his legal right, power or authority for doing trespass in the settled and lawful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.

7. Plaintiff states that the suit property is very much in his possession as his construction materials like cement bags, wooden staircase are lying at the suit property.

8. It is further stated that the defendant No. 1 has no legal right over the property and the defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant Nos. 2 to 4 has fabricated documents to lay false claim over the suit property.

9. It is submitted by the plaintiff that since the intention of defendant No.1 is malafide hence, the plaintiff wants to refrain defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for doing such illegal activities. The plaintiff states that he has reasons to believe that the defendant No.1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 to 4 may sell the said property to some third person. Hence, to av