Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The three plaintiffs have instituted this suit for cancellation of documents, recovery and damages of Rs.25 lacs and permanent injunction, pleading:-(a). that the plaintiff no.3 Shri Gobind Dewan is the father of the plaintiff no.1 and father-in-law of the plaintiff no.2 Mrs. Mahima Dewan; (b). that the defendant no.1 Shri Manoj Sethi had approached the plaintiff no.1 on 24th October, 2005 for sale to the plaintiff no.1 of plot ad-measuring 32 sq. mtrs. bearing No.C-2/299, Sector-32, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,15,000/- and earnest money/bayana receipt dated 24th October, 2005 was executed and the plaintiff no.1 paid a sum of Rs.4 lacs thereunder as earnest money/bayana to the defendant no.1; however inspite of the plaintiff no.1 being ready and willing, the defendant no.1 did not fulfill his obligations under the earnest money receipt / bayana; (c). that the defendant no.1 also took huge amount of approximately Rs.12 lacs from the plaintiff no.1 under another two Agreements-cum-Bayana Rasid for two other plots but failed to convey the same also to the plaintiff no.1; (d). that subsequently the plaintiff no.1 realized that the defendant no.1 had cheated and defrauded the plaintiffs on the pretext of selling the aforesaid properties to the plaintiffs when he had no right to sell the same; (e). that the defendant no.1 however threatened the plaintiff no.1 of dire consequences if plaintiff no.1 raised any alarm; (f). that the plaintiff no.1 sent two legal notices dated 18th March, 2008 to the defendant no.1 in this regard but which the defendant no.1 failed to receive; (g). that thereafter on 29th April, 2008 the defendant no.1 represented to the plaintiff no.1 that he will get the plaintiff no.1 compensated for the losses so suffered by the plaintiff no.1 by betting in cricket matches; (h). that the plaintiff no.1 trusting the defendant no.1 kept on playing / betting in such games as was advised by the defendant no.1 and then came to know that the defendant no.1 is a bookie; (i). that though initially the defendant no.1 told the plaintiff no.1 that he was winning a lot and also paid few thousands to the plaintiff no.1 but subsequently informed that the plaintiff no.1 was on a losing streak and asked the plaintiff no.1 to give some more money; (j). that the plaintiff no.1 gave one blank cheque of his wife, plaintiff no.2 to the defendant no.1; (k). that thereafter the defendant no.1 kept on insisting and threatening the plaintiff no.1 to give some valuables as there was no amount in the bank account of the plaintiff no.2; (l). that the plaintiff no.1 being hypnotized and pressurized and threatened by the defendant no.1, gave jewelries of the plaintiff no.2 and his mother to the defendant no.1; (m). that the plaintiff no.1 was also made to execute documents of one property/shop in the name of the plaintiff no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 who is the brother-in-law of the defendant no.1, without receiving any consideration therefore; (n). that the defendant no.1 misused the blank cheque drawn on the account of the plaintiff no.2 by filling in a sum of Rs.5 lacs therein in favour of defendant no.3 Mr. Lakshmi Kant Bamola, whom the plaintiffs do not even know; (o). it was at that stage that the plaintiff no.1 informed of all the aforesaid to his father plaintiff no.3; (p). that the plaintiff no.1 then sent a complaint dated 25th May, 2008 to the Police but no action was taken thereon; (q). that the defendant no.1 has thus committed criminal breach of trust, cheating and fraud on the plaintiffs and has caused loss of around Rs.25 lacs to the plaintiffs as the cost of the plot has gone much higher; (r). that though the plaintiffs are entitled to take legal possession of property No.C-2/2999, Sector32, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 but have learnt that the said property has also changed hands and hence in the alternative the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the de