The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence in property disputes and the need for uniform guidelines for receiving and maintaining original documents in Trial Courts.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of a decree passed for possession, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profits.

2. The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, 'Plaintiff') is that a sale transaction was entered into with the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter 'Defendant'), in respect of property bearing H. No.74, Pocket B-6, Sector-8, land measuring 25.9 sq. mtrs. in the layout plan of Rohini Residential Scheme also known as Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter, 'suit property'). The documents executed were –

(i) General Power of Attorney dated 26th February, 1997,

(ii) Agreement to Sell dated 25th February, 1997,

(iii) Receipt dated 25th February, 1997,

(iv) Will dated 26th February, 1997,

(v) Special Power of Attorney dated 26th February 1997,

(vi) Possession letter dated 26th February, 1997.

The General Power of Attorney, the Special Power of Attorney and the Will were registered with the Sub-Registrar’s office on 26th February, 1997. There is a dispute as to the consideration amount. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the consideration amount was Rs.65,000/- which was not paid, but it is the Defendant’s case that the consideration amount was Rs.5,00,000/- which was paid. The Plaintiff submits that a post-dated cheque bearing no. 639084 of Rs.65,000/- was issued by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Plaintiff but the Defendant had issued "stop payment" instructions and hence the consideration was not received. The Plaintiff was then forced to cancel all the documents by registered Cancellation Deed dated 6th August, 1999. Under these circumstances, since the sale consideration was not paid, the Plaintiff sought decree of possession, recovery of Rs.76,000/- and for mesne profits. The reliefs prayed for in the suit are as under :

“(a) Pass a decree for POSSESSION, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the property bearing No.74, Pocket B-6, Sector 8, land measuring 25.9 sq. mtrs. in the layout plan of Rohini Resdl. Scheme, known as Rohini, Delhi, more clearly shown in Red colour in annexed site plan, directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the said property to the plaintiff.

(b) Pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 76,000/- (Rupees Seventy Sic Thousand only) towards damages/mesne profits @ Rs.2000/- per month for the period w.e.f 26.7.1997 to 25.9.2000 for the illegal and unauthorised use and occupation of the property bearing No. 74, Pocket B-6, Sector 8, land measuring 25.9 sq. mtrs. in the layout plan of Rohini Resdl. Scheme, known as Rohini, Delhi, more clearly shown in Red colour in annexed site plan, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;

(c) Pass a decree for PERMANENT INJUNCTION in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, attorneys, etc. from alienating, transferring, subletting or parting with possession of whole or any part of the said property bearing No.74, Pocket B-6, Sector 8, land measuring 25.09 sq. mtrs in the layout plan of Rohini Resdl. Scheme, known as Rohini, Delhi, more clearly shown in Red colour in annexed site plan, as also from creating any third party interest in the said property;

(d) Pass a decree U/o 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for recovery of damages/mesne profits @ Rs.2000/- or at such other rate as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, in respect of property bearing No.74, Pocket B-6, Sector 8, land measuring 25.9 sq. mtrs in the layout plan of Rohini Resdl. Scheme, known as Rohini, Delhi, more clearly shown in Red colour in annexed site plan, for the period w.e.f. 26th September, 2000 till delivery of the possession of the said property to the plaintiff;

(e) Award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(f) Award any other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the plaintiff.”

3. The case of the Def