VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 15.9.2004, by which trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/ plaintiff and has directed the appellant/defendant to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit property being the ground floor and the first floor of the property no. 254, part of Khasra No. 378, measuring 160 sq. yards, Masjid Moth, New Delhi.

2.(i) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for specific performance of the suit property pleading that appellant/defendant had on 18.8.2000 received the total sale consideration of Rs. 15 lacs and had executed the following documents in favour of the respondent/plaintiff:-

“(a) Agreement to sell dated 18.8.2000.

(b) General Power of Attorney dated 18.8.2000 duly registered with SR-VII.

(c) Will dated 18.8.2000 duly registered with SR-VII.

(d) Indemnity Bond dated 18.8.2000.

(e) Affidavit dated 18.8.2000.

(f) A receipt for Rs. 15 lacs dated 18.8.2000.

(g) Possession letter dated 18.8.2000.”

(ii) It was also pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant handed over to the respondent/plaintiff the following documents in order to prove his title and possession in the suit property:-

“(i) Will dated 5th day of June 1995 duly executed by the testator Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Sh. Mithan Lal (the grandmother of the defendant).

(ii) A Demand Notice for the year 1983-84 issued by the Assessment and Collection Department, M.C.D. South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi in respect of the property tax of the property bearing no. 254, village Masjid Moth, New Delhi (the suit property).

(iii) Sale Deed dated 24th day of January 1985 in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Sh. Mithan Lal duly registered on 24.1.85 with Sub Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.”

(iii) Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that though appellant/defendant executed the possession letter in favour of the respondent/plaintiff but he stated that possession be retained with him not only because it was the mid-school session of the children of the appellant/ defendant, but also that appellant/defendant had creditors and the appellant/defendant would not like to reveal that he had transferred rights in the suit property to the respondent/ plaintiff after receiving the consideration and which aspect of transfer of rights to the respondent/plaintiff would become clear in case possession of the suit property was taken by the respondent/plaintiff. It is further pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that since in spite of repeated requests the appellant/defendant failed to execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and also failed to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff, hence the subject suit was filed.

3. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement alleging that the transaction in question was not a transaction of transfer of rights in the suit property by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff but the relevant documents dated 18.8.2000 were executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff only as a security for loan of Rs. 15 lacs which the appellant/defendant was to take from the respondent/plaintiff for a new project of construction which the appellant/defendant was engaged in. Appellant/defendant also pleaded that respondent/plaintiff took three blank cheques as security for the loan, but, the respondent/plaintiff not only did not give the loan but also did not give back the documents dated 18.8.2000 which were executed by the appellant/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Hence dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the documents GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, Receipt were g