PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter Plaintiff) Smt. Maina Devi entered into a transaction for purchase of property bearing No. (old) 624/29 (new no. B3) area measuring 213.5 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 256/1 situated in the abadi village Ghonda Gujran Khadar colony known as Bhajan Pura Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110053 (hereinafter suit property) from her brother Sh. Rati Ram and his wife Smt. Jai Rani the Respondents/Defendants (hereinafter Defendants). Agreement to Sell dated 1st October, 1987, GPA, Affidavit in support and lease were executed. She claimed that vacant and peaceful possession of the property was handed over on the same day and she constructed a boundary wall.

2. It is her case that on the night of 11th/12th October, 1991, the Defendants demolished the boundary wall and occupied the same illegally and forcefully. Immediately, a complaint was lodged with the police in PS Bhajan Pura and under the security provide by the DCP, the boundary wall was constructed again. However, on 22nd/23rd, October, 1991 in the night, the boundary wall was again demolished. On the very same day i.e., 23rd October, 1991, her husband and son Sh. H.R. Gola and Sh. Rajender Kumar were served with summons in a suit filed by her brother-Defendant No. 1, Sh. Rati Ram. Police protection was again sought. Since the suit was pending in court, the Plaintiff was unable to erect the boundary wall again. Under these circumstances, she filed the subject suit seeking possession and damages in the following terms:

“(a) pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to hand over the peaceful possession of the said property bearing No. (old) 624/29 and New B-3, area measuring 213.5 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 256/1, situate in the abadi of Village Ghonda Gujran Khader colony known as Bhajanpura, Iliqa Shahdra Delhi-110053 as shown red in the site plan annexed with the plaint.

(b) pass a decree for Rs. 7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Twenty Thousand Only) alongwith the pendentelite and future mesne profit @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of the filing of the suit till the possession of the suit property is restored to the plaintiff, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in addition to the aforesaid relief of possession as prayed in clauses (a) above.”

3. The Defendants in their Written Statement claimed that the Agreement to Sell dated 1st October, 1987 is forged and fabricated and that they never sold the property to the Plaintiff. They claimed that they were the owner of the entire property bearing 427 sq. yds. which was purchased from Sh. Jumma Mal who had executed the Agreement to Sell, Will, Power of Attorney, etc. in their favour. The Defendants claimed that the Will of Sh. Jumma Mal has been probated and hence they are the full owners of the property. The Plaintiffs, in replication averred that the Will executed by Sh. Jumma Mal in favour of the Defendants was forged and fabricated as the Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney alone were executed. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the absence of title documents of the property? OPD

(ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

(iii) Whether the agreement to sell dated 01.10.87 is void ab initio or is liable to be declared as void as claimed by the defendants? OPD

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the property in question as prayed for? OPP

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs. 7,20,000/- alongwith pendentelite and future mesne profits @ Rs. 20,000 p.m. or of any other amount as damages/mesne profits, as prayed for? OPP

(vi) Relief.”

4. Plaintiff-Smt. Maina Devi appeared as PW-1 and her husband, Sh. H.L. Gola appeared as PW-2. A statement was also recorded of the counsel for the Plaintiff to the following e