VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This is a suit filed for possession, declaration, mesne profits/damages, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The suit property is the property bearing no.8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 on a plot admeasuring 267 sq yds. There are two plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiff no.1 is Smt. Vaneeta Khanna and who is the wife of plaintiff no.2/Mr. Arun Khanna. Plaintiff no.1 pleads that she purchased rights in the suit property in terms of the original bunch of documentation dated 12.5.2004 read with the registered Agreement to Sell dated 16.6.2004 executed by plaintiff no.2 as a general power of attorney holder (registered) of defendant no.2. There are six defendants in the suit. Defendant no.1/Mr. Rajiv Gupta is the original owner of the suit property. Defendant no.2/Mr. Judge Chawla is said to be the person who had purchased the suit property from defendant no.1 in terms of documents dated 12.5.2004 including the registered General Power of Attorney dated 12.5.2004 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2. Defendant nos. 3 to 6 claim to be the bona fide purchasers of the suit property in terms of the later documentation dated 14.9.2004.

2. The case as pleaded by the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 purchased rights in the suit property as per documentation dated 12.5.2004 and which documents are an agreement to sell, general power of attorney, registered Will, possession letter, receipt and affidavit. Out of these documents, the power of attorney executed in favour of plaintiff no.2 by the defendant no.2 was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar. One more document which was registered on 12.5.2004 is the Will executed in favour of plaintiff no.1 by defendant no.2. Other documents are unregistered documents. The case of the plaintiffs is that for acquiring ownership rights in the suit property in terms of the documentation dated 12.5.2004, a sum of Rs.5 lacs by a crossed cheque was paid by the plaintiff no.1 to the defendant no.2. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the Agreement to Sell executed on 12.5.2004 could not be registered on account of certain deficiency in stamp duty and therefore after making up the deficiency of stamp duty, the fresh Agreement to Sell was executed and registered on 16.6.2004 in favour of plaintiff no.1 by the plaintiff no.2 acting under the registered Power of Attorney dated 12.5.2004 executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of the plaintiff no.2. Plaintiffs plead that they received possession of the suit property pursuant to the aforesaid documentation executed in favour of the plaintiff no.1. Plaintiffs also plead that since the suit property was to be got converted from lease hold to free hold, therefore, on the request of the defendant no.2, plaintiff no.1 in trust gave some signed papers in blank to the defendant no.2 so that necessary papers could be prepared and filed for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold before the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Plaintiffs claim that the defendant no.2 misused these blank papers and instead created/fabricated a collaboration agreement with respect to rights in favour of defendant no.2 by the plaintiff no.2 of the second floor and above of the suit property, and this was done because really the suit property when purchased by the plaintiff no.1 was constructed only on the ground floor and the first floor portion i.e defendant no.2 had a fraudulent intention because he realized that he could take advantage alongwith defendant no.1 that the documents executed in favour of the plaintiffs referred to the suit property with only as being the ground floor and the first floor. The further case of the plaintiffs is that when plaintiffs visited the suit property on 24.7.2004, it transpired that the locks which the plaintiff no.1 had put on the suit property on execution of the documents in favour of the plaintiff no.1, were broken and the locks were fo