VINOD GOEL, J.

1. Challenge in this Regular First Appeal is the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the suit of the appellant was dismissed and that of the counter claim of the respondents was decreed in respect of property bearing no.261A measuring 190 square yards consisting of Khasra no.5/25, Sainik Enclave, New Delhi.

2. The appellant filed suit for a Permanent Injunction claiming to be the absolute owner of plot bearing no.261A area measuring 190 (46”x 37”) square yards consisting of Khasra no.5/25, Sainik Enclave, New Delhi. He claimed that he had purchased the said property for a sum of Rs.75,000/- from Mr.Niyadar Singh s/o Rizak Ram on 11th November, 1998. Sale documents are comprising of: -

i. General Power of Attorney executed by said Niyadar Singh in favour of Appellant registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 12.11.1998 (Ex.PW1/1),

ii. Agreement to Sale and Purchase dated 10.11.1998 attested by Notary Public on 11.11.1998 (Ex.PW1/2),

iii. Receipt of payment of entire sale consideration of Rs.75,000 dated 10.11.1998 executed by Niyadar Singh (Ex.PW1/3),

iv. Possession Letter dated 10.11.1998 Notarized on 11.11.1998 executed by Niyadar Singh (Ex.PW1/4); and

v. Will executed by Niyadar Singh in favour of the appellant dated 12.11.1998 (Ex.PW1/5) registered before the Sub-Registrar on 12.11.1998. This Will bears the photographs of the executants of the Will i.e. Niyadar Singh.

3. On 12th February, 2012, the respondents threatened to construct a boundary wall on the said plot and claimed to be the owner of the said property. The appellant informed the police immediately. He preferred the civil suit on 16.02.2012.

4. In their joint written statement, the respondents had taken several preliminary objections. It is alleged that the appellant has no cause of action to file the present suit; the suit is barred under Section 41(h)(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; appellant has no locus standi to file the present suit as he is neither the owner nor in possession of the property. On merits the respondents had denied that the appellant is the absolute owner of the said property or that he purchased the same from Niyadar Singh on 11th November, 1998 for a sum of Rs.75,000/-. It is pleaded by the respondent that the appellant has forged and fabricated the documents. It is also claimed by the respondents that they are in actual physical possession of the suit plot and have raised the boundary wall up to DPC level. They pleaded to have collected building material on 31st December, 2011 to raise the boundary wall and further constructions and the appellant interfered in raising the constructions without right, title and interest.

5. It is also pleaded by the respondents that on 6th October, 1986, said Niyadar Singh being the attorney of Shri Bhagwan sold the suit land measuring 567 square yards out of Khasra no.5/25, Village Rajapur Khurd, which now forms part of Abadi of Mohan Garden, to one Sh. Khairati Lal. It is claimed that Sh. Khairati Lal sold plot no.261 measuring 567 square yards, Khasra no.5/25 on 20.06.1997 by sale documents to Sh. R.P. Aggarwal, who in turn sold 200 square yards of the land in the measurement of 45” x 40” out of khasra no.5/25 situated in village Rajapur Khurd, Sainik Enclave, Mohan Garden, Delhi to the respondent No.2 which is bounded as under:-

“East	Road 20 ft.
West	Remaining part of plot no.261 of Mukesh
South	Road 25ft
North	plot of Mukesh Sharma”

6. The respondents filed counter claim. It is alleged in the counter claim that respondent no.2 purchased plot no.261 measuring 200 square yards out of khasra no.05/25 situated in Village Rajapur Khurd for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- from Sh. R.P. Aggarwal who executed sale documents consisting of GPA, Agreement to S