Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the order dated 14th December, 2004 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi of rejection of plaint in Suit No.359/2003 filed by the appellants for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property and for recovery of possession thereof and in the alternative for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.15 lakhs jointly and severally from the four respondents/defendants, and the consequent decree of dismissal of suit.

2. The appeal was admitted for hearing and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 23rd May, 2005, the respondents restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property. Only the respondents No.3 & 4 namely Mr. Balbir Singh and Mr. Satvir Singh appeared in response to the notice and the respondents No.1 & 2 namely Mr. K.N. Jain and Mr. P.K. Padmanabhan failed to appear inspite of service by publication. Finding no order till now of proceeding ex-parte against the respondents No.1 & 2, they are now ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The respondent No.3 Mr. Balbir Singh died on 4th February, 2012 during the pendency of the appeal and an application for substitution of his legal heirs was filed. Vide order dated 15th July, 2013, his legal heirs were substituted. The appellants filed CM No.8181/2013 for deletion of the name of the appellant No.1 from the memo of parties and the same was also allowed vide order dated 15th July, 2013 without prejudice to the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.4 of the consequence of such deletion. The counsel for the respondent No.4 states that though he was earlier appearing for the deceased respondent No.3 also but the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.3 have not engaged him and he does not represent them.

3. None appears for the legal heirs of the respondent No.3; they are also proceeded against ex-parte.

4. The counsel for the now sole appellant Mr. Breejesh Narula and the counsel for the respondent No.4 have been heard.

5. The appellant filed the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:

(i) that the respondents No.1 & 2 at different times were owners of plot bearing Khasra No.47/9, Village Mehrauli, New Delhi;

(ii) that the respondents No.3 & 4 were property dealers of the area;

(iii) that in April, 1992, the respondents No.3 & 4 projecting themselves as agents of the respondent No.1 approached the appellant and proposed a sale of the said land in Khasra No.47/9, Village Mehrauli, New Delhi and showed the Farad of the said land in the name of the respondent No.2 and a registered power of attorney executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 and represented that the respondent No.1 was thus entitled to sell the property;

(iv) that the appellant decided to buy the part of the land admeasuring 410 sq. yds. out of total area of about 3,400 sq. yds. and the price after deliberations with the respondents No.1, 3 & 4 was fixed at Rs.50,000/-

(v) that the appellant paid the entire consideration of Rs.50,000/-and the respondent No.1 executed an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of Attorney both dated 24th April, 1992 and some other relevant documents in favour of the appellant;

(vi) that the appellant also paid the brokerage of the respondents No.3 & 4;

(vii) that vacant possession of the land agreed to be sold was also handed over to the appellant and the appellant constructed a boundary wall and a small room thereon;

(viii) that the respondent No.3 also had a plot in the same area and in February, 1995 requested the appellant to allow use of the room aforesaid for keeping certain perishable items, stating that he was constructing a house on his plot which was adjacent to the subject plot;

(ix) that the appellant so allowed permissive use of the property to the respondent No.3;

(x) that the appellant in September, 1998 found that the respondent No.3 had constructed another room on the subject property and upon the appellant objecting, a