Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 07.12.2002 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.

2. The respondent/plaintiff i.e. Sh. Noor Mohd had filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession against three defendants namely Smt. Rehmat Bee, SI K.P. Kukreti and Pyare Khan. Plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No. M-16 measuring 100 square yards being a part of khasra No. 455/256 in the abadi known as Abdul Fazal Enclave, New Delhi (Okhla). Plaintiff had purchased this property comprising of one room, basement and boundary wall from its erstwhile owner, Sh. Pyare Khan (defendant No. 3) for a consideration of Rs 1,40,000/-. Documents to the said effect had been executed and the physical possession property had been handed over by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff reconstructed the property and started using it for a residential cum commercial purpose. On 02.04.1994, Rehmat Bee (defendant No. 1) along with 10 to 15 other persons came to his property and started beating the members of his family. Complaint was made to the Police Station. Defendant No. 1 staked her claim to the suit property. The suit property was locked by the defendant No. 2. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 in collusion with defendant No. 1 handed over the keys of the suit premises to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 sought to buy back this property from the plaintiff. He gave cheques totalling Rs. 1,92,000/- to the plaintiff, all of which were dishonoured. On 26.09.1994, plaintiff learnt that the defendant is proposing to carry out construction in the suit property. Present suit was accordingly filed.

3. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement claimed ownership of the property having purchased it in 1984 from defendant No. 3. Her contention was that in 1993-1994, plaintiff had approached her and asked her to sell the property to him; at her refusal, he threatened her with dire consequences.

4. Defendant No. 2 did not file any written statement. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte.

5. Defendant No. 3 averred that he had sold the suit property to the plaintiff; thereafter at the request of the plaintiff, he had agreed to buy back this property; he admitted that his cheques of Rs. 1,92,000/- had been dishonored; he had however paid a sum of Rs. 98,000/- to the plaintiff.

6. The Trial Judge framed eight issues which inter alia read as follows.

"1. Whether there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff? OPD 1.

2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the present suit? OPD 1

3. Whether defendant No. 3 ever sold the property to defendant No. 1. If so, its effect? OPP 1

4. Whether the defendant No. 3 sold the property to the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff and his family was illegally dispossessed from the suit premises by defendant No. 1? If so, its effect? OPD

6. Whether the suit has been filed by the plaintiff with mala fide intention to grab the plot in question in which the defendant No. 1 is residing since 1984? OPD 1.

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? OPP

8. Relief."

7. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendant. The testimony of the aforenoted witnesses as also the documentary evidence adduced by them was scrutinized in an in-depth detail. Trial judge held that the plaintiff had legal title to the suit property, he having purchased it from defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 had illegally locked the premises; defendant No. 1 had no right and title to the same. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Defendant No. 1 was directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff; further directions were given not to raise any construction thereon.

8. The impugned judgment and decree had endorsed the finding of the trial judge. Before the first appell