Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 24th January, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court (exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction in CS(OS) No.2154/2010 filed by the respondents) of allowing IA No.8419/2013 of the respondnts/plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. Notice of the appeal was issued and vide ad interim order dated 4th April, 2014 which continues to be in force, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. We have heard the counsel for the appellants/defendants and the senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. The two respondents/plaintiffs instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, (i) for recovery of possession of property No.53, Sector-12, Block-B, Dwarka, New Delhi ad measuring 334 sq. mtrs. together with mesne profits/damages for use and occupation from the date of institution of the suit till the date when the possession is handed over; (ii) for permanent injunction restraining the two defendants/appellants from raising any further construction on the suit property and/or selling, alienating, encumbering, disposing of or otherwise dealing with the said property; (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from misusing the original title documents of the said property; and, (iv) for mandatory injunction directing the appellants/defendants to deliver original documents of the property, pleading,

(a) that the respondent/plaintiff No.2 Sh. Bhagwan Sharma and the appellant/defendant No.2 Sh. Ramphal Parasar are brothers, being the sons of Sh. Ramdhan Sharma; the respondent/plaintiff No.1 and the appellant/defendant No.1 are the wives of respondent/plaintiff No.2 and appellant/defendant No.2 respectively;

(b) that the subject property was allotted by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to one Sh. Ishwar Singh;

(c) that the appellant/defendant No.2 was working in the Land & Building Department of Delhi Government and by virtue of his said employment, was aware of the allotment in favour of Sh. Ishwar Singh;

(d) that the appellant/defendant No.2 informed the respondents/plaintiffs of the desire of the said Sh. Ishwar Singh to sell the said property;

(e) that the respondents/plaintiffs approached the said Sh. Ishwar Singh for purchasing the property and after paying the entire sale consideration thereof, got the documents with respect thereto executed in their favour from Sh. Ishwar Singh on 25th January, 1994;

(f) that the appellant/defendant No.2 offered to get the property converted into freehold and the respondents/plaintiffs for the said purpose handed over all the original documents of the property to the appellant/defendant No.2;

(g) that the appellant/defendant No.2 however informed the respondents/plaintiffs that the said documents had been misplaced by him and the respondents/plaintiffs lodged FIR dated 20th August, 2001 thereof;

(h) that in September, 2009, the respondents/plaintiffs learnt that the appellant/defendant No.2 was raising construction on the said property and upon the appellants/defendants failing to deliver possession of the property to the respondents/plaintiffs, the suit was filed.

3. Needless to state the appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, on the grounds:

(a) that the appellants/defendants had purchased the said property vide Agreement to Sell and other documents dated 11th July, 2001 from the erstwhile owner Sh. Ramdhan Sharma, being the father of the appellant/defendant No.2 and the father-in-law of the appellant/defendant No.1;

(b) that thereafter the said property was got converted into freehold and a Conveyance Deed was duly executed in favour of the appellants/defendants by DDA on 17th October, 2005;

(c) that Sh. Ramdhan Sharma in turn had purchased the said property vide documents executed in his favour on 27th May, 1994 by Sh. Ishwar Singh, the original allottee of the land underneath the said property.

4. On 28th November, 2011, the following issues were fra