Mukta Gupta, J.

1. Siri Bhagwan the appellant herein filed a suit being CS (OS) No. 2670/2014 before this Court, inter alia, seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated November 13, 2006, declaring him as owner of 2/9th share in land bearing Khasra No. 852 (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Rajokari, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (in short the suit property) and restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from his undivided cultavatory possession of the suit property.

2. It was pleaded in the plaint by Siri Bhagwan that he was recorded co-owner in actual cultivatory possession of the 2/9th share of the suit property besides being the co-owner of other lands bearing khasra Nos. 1117 (1-18), 1118(3-8), 1119(5-5), 1120(15-7) of Village Rajokari, Delhi. He produced the fard khatoni paimaish of said Khata No. 531 with respect to khasra No. 852 (4-16) of Village Rajokari i.e. the suit property and the site plan. Siri Bhagwan stated that Pramod Aggarwal defendant No. 2 in the suit offered to purchase the suit property on November 13, 2006 for a sum of Rs. one crore and paid a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as advance and the balance was to be paid within 12 months. Pramod Agarwal took Siri Bhagwan to the office of Sub-Registrar at Kapeshera, Delhi and tendered a cheque for a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as earnest money and took thumb impression and signatures of Siri Bhagwan on some typed papers which he could not understand being not versed in English language. Pramod Aggarwal represented that the said documents were deed of agreement to sell which were required to be registered. Though 12 months elapsed but Pramod Agarwal neither paid the balance amount nor turned up for execution and when Siri Bhagwan met him he was told that Pramod Agarwal did not have the balance amount and the same would be paid with 12% interest whenever the market recovered. Not hearing anything from Pramod Agarwal, Siri Bhagwan continued to enjoy his land as before November 13, 2006. In the first week of September 2013 Siri Bhagwan saw a notice regarding mutation of the suit property and upon enquiry from the Halqa Patwari it was revealed that defendant No. 1 i.e. V.B.M. Estates Pvt. Ltd. (In short V.B.M. Estates) had applied for mutation on the basis of a release deed dated November 13, 2006. Thus for the first time in September 2013 Siri Bhagwan came to know about release deed which was registered on November 13, 2006 wherein Pramod Agarwal was shown as the authorised signatory of V.B.M. Estates. Siri Bhagwan appeared before the Tehsildar on September 10, 2013 when he did not give his consent to the mutation and got recorded his objection that he was in possession of suit property and was yet to receive the sum. He further stated that once the money transaction would be over, he would come to give his statement. Since balance amount was not paid by the defendants and they were trying to get the mutation recorded in the garb of the release deed which was stated to be a deed of agreement for sale to Siri Bhagwan, he filed the suit.

3. In the written statement V.B.M. Estates and Pramod Agarwal, inter alia, took the pleas that the suit was without any cause of action, Siri Bhagwan had no locus standi to claim the relief, the suit was barred by limitation, suit for mere cancellation of the release deed and declaration of ownership without the relief of possession was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (in short the DLR Act). The defendant also took the plea that the execution of release deed has been admitted by Siri Bhagwan before the Tehsildar on September 10, 2013 during mutation proceedings. Hence now he cannot plead ignorance and go beyond the terms of the written document.

4. By the impugned judgment dated May 18, 2015 the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit being barred by limitation, no cause of action accrued in favour of Siri Bh