Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.11.2011 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession and mesne profits. Suit was originally filed by Smt. Shilawanti the mother of the two defendants. On the death of the original plaintiff, Smt. Shilawanti, her one other son Sh. Amarjeet Singh i.e the present appellant, was substituted in place of Smt. Shilawanti on an application being filed by him for his substitution, and which application for substitution was allowed on account of a Gift Deed dated 23.10.1998 (registered on 17.11.1998) executed by Smt. Shilawanti in favour of the present appellant Sh. Amarjeet Singh. It is also required to be noted that suit as originally filed by Smt. Shilawanti was through her husband and power of attorney holder Sh. Arjan Singh. The two respondents/defendants, namely Sh. S. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. Gurbachan Singh, are the sons of the original plaintiff Smt. Shilawanti and Sh. Arjan Singh. The present appellant Sh. Amarjeet Singh, the other son of Smt. Shilawanti, is thus the brother of the two respondents/defendants.

2(i) In the subject suit which was filed by Smt. Shilawanti against her two sons there is no dispute as regards the ownership originally of Smt. Shilawanti of the suit property being the first floor and second floor of E-216, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Smt. Shilawanti as per the subject suit prayed for possession and mesne profits on account of the respondents/defendants being licencees but who had failed to vacate the suit premises in spite of service of notice dated 17.5.1994 terminating their gratuitous licence. It is also to be noted that Smt. Shilawanti/original plaintiff pleaded that she got two public notices issued in two newspapers on 23.5.1994 disinheriting her two sons being the two respondents/defendants, from all the movable and immovable assets of Smt. Shilawanti.

(ii) The respondents/defendants pleaded ownership of the suit property on account of Smt. Shilawanti having executed in their favour respectively the set of documents dated 23.7.1987 and 17.8.1987 being the Agreements to Sell, Receipts, Affidavits, Wills and General Power of Attorneys. Respondents/defendants pleaded that they paid consideration of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.70,000/- respectively to Smt. Shilawanti at the time of execution of the documents dated 23.7.1987 and 17.8.1987 and that earlier in 1981 they had already paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs to Smt. Shilawanti. Respondents/defendants also denied that the mother/original plaintiff/Smt. Shilawanti had ever executed the registered Gift Deed dated 23.10.1998 in favour of the present appellant/Sh. Amarjeet Singh. It was pleaded by the respondents/defendants that the mother Smt. Shilawanti was not in a fit state of mind at the time of execution of the Gift Deed dated 23.10.1998 and that the Gift Deed was got executed by undue influence etc.

3. The following issues were framed in the suit:-

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? If so to what effect? OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff executed documents regarding sale, through affidavit, agreement to sell, receipt, will, GPA dated 23.07.1987 in favour of the defendant No.1 & 2? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount on account of damages, mesne profits from the defendant. If so at what rate and for what period? OPP

(iv) Relief.”

4. The evidence which was led by the parties is referred to in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, and these paras read as under:-

“7. In support of the plaintiff, following witnesses appeared in the witness box:-

(i) Amarjeet Singh (Son of plaintiff),

(ii) Arjan Singh (husband of defendant),

(iii) Rajesh Kumar, LDC, A&C department, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD.

(iv) PW4 S.R.Singh, Asstt, L & DO

(v) PW5 Sandeep Malhotra

(vi) PW6 Ramesh Chand

(vii) PW7 Ajit Singh

Thereafter, the defen