The existence of a conveyance deed superseded the agreement to sell, and the appellant's claim based on the agreement to sell could not be allowed without challenging the conveyance deed. The appellant's possession and ownership rights could not be asserted without challenging the conveyance deed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. The present appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated February 01, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court striking off the proposed issue with regard to appellant's share in the House No.D-8, Saket, New Delhi-110017 and resultantly dismissing the suit of the appellant, in respect to the said property under Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The facts as noted from the appeal are that father of the appellant, Sh. B.P. Sud had started a garments business under the name of Shanker Enterprises. The respondent No.1 Sh. J.P Sud was not a part of the business initially and was employed in a private firm. The garment business started by Sh. B.P Sud under the name and style of M/s. Shanker Enterprises, flourished and Sh. Prem Chand Sud, grandfather of the appellant and Sh. D.C. Sud, uncle of the appellant joined the business. However, during 1974-75, M/s. Shanker Enterprises got involved into serious labour disputes and litigation. Consequently the Firm was closed down. To retain the original clientele of M/s. Shankar Enterprise, the respondent No.1 along with Mrs. Jaswanti Sud, grandmother of the appellant, formed another firm under the name of M/s. Hemstitch India. The entire business of Shanker Enterprises was transferred to M/s. Hemstitch India. Sh. B.P. Sud consciously did not join the new business as he was facing several labour cases. In 1976, a partnership in the name of the grandmother of the appellant and the respondent No.1 was constituted under the name of Hemstitch India. In 1978 Mrs. Anila Sud, mother of the appellant, joined M/s. Hemstitch India as a partner. By the agreement to sell dated October 16, 1979 and out of the moneys drawn from M/s. Hemstitch India, Mrs. Anila Sud, the original plaintiff and the mother of the appellant, the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.3 jointly purchased the House No.D-8, Saket, New Delhi from Sh. Gur Prashad Khanna (Seller). The seller nominated Sh. B.P. Sud, father of the appellant as his Attorney. Later on, from the funds drawn from M/s. Hemstitch India, the family residential house on Plot No.D-8, Saket New Delhi was constructed. The grandmother of the appellant, respondent No.1 and the mother of the appellant reconstituted the partnership under the name of Hemstitch India, in 1980.

3. It is stated that the parties have been living together at D-8, Sakhet, New Delhi. They had a common kitchen until difference cropped up in the year 2009. Several assets and properties, which are the subject matter of the suit have been acquired out of the moneys drawn from the joint and common businesses. It is averred that the respondent No.1, through mischievous designs, contrived manipulation and by practicing deception, dishonestly got the conveyance deed dated January 14, 1994 of the House No.D-8, Saket New Delhi, executed in his individual name from the DDA. Sh. B.P. Sud expired on November 07, 2006. With effect from June, 2009, the respondent No.1 along with his family started living separately in another house at Sainik Farms. It is the case of the appellant that without the knowledge and consent of the appellant's family, the respondent No.1 started sending interested persons to visit the house at D-8, Saket, New Delhi for buying or taking on rent even while the appellant and his family members were living in that house.

4. It is stated that it was sometime in 2009 that Mrs. Anila Sud realized that the respondent No.1 was systematically keeping her family out of the affairs of the Partnership Firm and had not been rendering the true accounts of the business and the personal assets and properties owned by and between the family members. It is averred that the respondents pressurized the appellant and his family members to vacate the house at D-8, Saket, New Delhi. It is their case that the respondent No.1 had plans to sell the house at D-8, Saket, New Delhi. On August 07, 2009, the appellant and his mother, the Original