1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 16th March, 2015 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ)-04 (NW), Rohini District Courts, Delhi of dismissal of CS No.261/14 filed by the appellant/plaintiff consequent to decision against the appellant/plaintiff on the preliminary issue framed in the suit.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued and trial court record requisitioned and though in response thereto the counsels for the respondent no.1 PNB Housing Finance Ltd. (PNBHFL) and respondent no.2 Allahabad Bank appeared but none appeared for the respondent no.3 The South Indian Bank Ltd. (SIBL) despite service. Notice issued to the respondents no.4 to 7 namely Shri Joginder Pal Gupta, Shri Tarun Gupta, Smt. Neelam Gupta and Shri Sita Ram was ordered to be served by publication but the appellant/plaintiff did not get the same effected and on the contrary on 26th April, 2016 the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff pressed for interim relief contending that the appeal would become infructuous in the absence thereof. It was also his contention that the respondents no.4 to 7 Shri Joginder Pal Gupta, Shri Tarun Gupta, Smt. Neelam Gupta and Shri Sita Ram were not appearing before the Trial Court as well. In this view of the matter, service of the respondents no.4 to 7 was dispensed with and the counsels for the appellant/plaintiff and the appearing respondents/defendants were heard and order reserved. The trial court record has been perused.

3. The appellant/plaintiff on 10th December, 2012 instituted the suit from which this appeal arises pleading

(i) that plot no.130, Pocket D-14, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi was sold by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vide Conveyance Deed dated 9th February, 2001 in favour of one Shri Amar Lal;

(ii) Shri Amar Lal vide Sale Deed dated 23rd August, 2004 sold the said property to one Smt. Sunita Gupta;

(iii) the said Smt. Sunita Gupta vide Sale Deed dated 11th August, 2005 sold first and second floors of the aforesaid property to one Shri Mohinder Khurana;

(iv) the said Shri Mohinder Khurana sold the first floor without roof rights of the said property vide Sale Deed dated 22nd December, 2005 to the respondent/defendant no.6 Smt. Neelam Gupta;

(v) the respondent/defendant no.6 Smt. Neelam Gupta sold the said first floor vide Sale Deed dated 23rd December, 2008 to the appellant/plaintiff and put the appellant/plaintiff in possession thereof and the appellant/plaintiff since then has been residing in the said property;

(vi) that respondent/defendant no.6 Smt. Neelam Gupta while purchasing the said first floor from Shri Mohinder Khurana as aforesaid had taken a house loan of Rs.9 lacs from Union Bank of India, Model Town, Delhi by mortgaging the said flat with the said Bank on 22nd December, 2005 by deposit of title deed and which loan was paid off by the respondent/defendant no.6 Neelam Gupta to the said Bank on 2nd June, 2008 and the flat redeemed;

(vii) that the appellant/plaintiff on 16th March, 2009, for the purposes of getting the said flat whitewashed had temporarily removed her goods/articles therefrom but on which date the said flat was sealed by the respondent no.1 PNBHFL;

(viii) that the appellant/plaintiff on making enquiries learnt that the respondents/defendants no.4 & 5 Shri Joginder Pal Gupta and Shri Tarun Gupta had taken loan from the respondent no.1 PNBHFL on 9th April, 2007 by giving alleged title deeds of the said flat to the respondent no.1 PNBHFL; that the said title deeds are forged and fabricated;

(ix) that the said loan was granted owing to conspiracy of senior officials of the respondent no.1 PNBHFL;

(x) that the appellant/plaintiff challenged the notices dated 18th February, 2009 of the respondent no.1 PNBHFL of sale of the subject flat by filing SA No.107/2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-III, Delhi;

(xi) that the respondent/defendant no.2 Allahabad Bank also issued notice dated 5th Jul