Vipin Sanghi, J.

I.A. Nos. 1111/2013 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of counter-claim filed by the defendant) and 1112/2013 (under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree on admission in the suit)

1. The present suit has been filed by three plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are businessmen and plaintiff No.3 is the mother of plaintiff No.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant was the sole and exclusive owner of built-up property bearing No. EC-5, Inderpuri, New Delhi – 110 012 admeasuring 500 sq. yds. situated in the area of village Naraina, Delhi (the suit property). The plaintiffs state that by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011, the defendant transferred the suit property to the plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs.1,65,00,000/-. The plaintiffs claim that the respective shares of the three plaintiffs in the suit property is as follows:

(i) Plaintiff No. 1’s share being 66.66%

(ii) Plaintiff No. 2’s share being 23.34%

(iii) Plaintiff No. 3’s share being 10%

2. The sale deed was registered as document No. 13,180 in Book No.I Volume No. 6,205 at pages 64-74 on 02.12.2011 in the office of the Sub-Registrar No. IX, New Delhi. The plaintiffs state that their right of possession was recognized in the said sale deed, which acknowledge that the vacant and physical possession of the abovementioned property under sale has been given to the Vendees by the Vendor, who have occupied the same.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that despite the receipt of the entire consideration and execution of the sale deed, the defendant has failed to handover the physical vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs – citing personal reasons like ill-health of the defendant’s wife, and urgent work commitments. The plaintiffs state that they did not press for immediate possession of the suit property, believing the defendant’s excuses. However, subsequently the plaintiffs started exerting pressure on the defendant to handover possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs state that the defendant started threatening and intimidating the plaintiffs with dire consequences every time the defendant was approached for handing over the possession. Despite having a clear title to the suit property, the plaintiffs have been deprived the actual possession of the suit property.

4. The plaintiffs state that they sent a legal notice dated 20.04.2012 to the defendant demanding vacant, physical and unencumbered possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs state that on 28.04.2012, the defendant met the plaintiffs and agreed to resolve the matter amicably. On the same day, the defendant handed over vacant, unencumbered and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs against a possession slip. The plaintiffs state that they took possession of the suit property on 28.04.2012 and also shifted some furniture and crockery into the suit property. They had scheduled a “Greh Pravesh” on the next date, i.e. 29.04.2012, which was a Sunday.

5. The plaintiffs narrate how, on the next date, i.e. 29.04.2012, the defendant allegedly forcibly took back the possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs called up the police station and also made a complaint by dialing number 100. The plaintiffs state that they were forced to leave the suit property under duress, and without consent. The plaintiffs state that they have filed a separate complaint for criminal trespass and criminal intimidation, which is pending investigation. The plaintiffs state that the suit property is lying vacant under the lock of the defendant, who is the resident of the adjoining property bearing No. EC-4, Inderpuri, New Delhi – 110 012. The plaintiffs claim physical and vacant possession of the suit property on the basis of their title. They also claim damages on account of being out of possession of the suit property.

6. Upon issuance of summons, the defendant has filed his written statement along with counter-claim. The defence set up by