Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. The present appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 which had reversed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 4.3.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2005 the suit of the plaintiff Paramjeet Singh was dismissed. The impugned judgment had decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:

(i) Plaintiff was stated to the owner of property i.e. house No. 8 B, Gali No. 5, Kundan Nagar, Bank Enclave Sharkarpur, Delhi. He has purchased it on 01.1.1990 from defendant No. 3 namely Mahender Kumar. Pursuant to this purchase the plaintiff started living in the first floor of the said house and the defendants started living on the ground floor. The plaintiff had cordial relations with defendant No. 3. Plaintiff was assured that after the defendants had constructed their own house they would shift therein and hand over the possession of the ground floor.

(ii) Father of the plaintiff was living in house No. V-162, Gali No. 5, Dispensary Wali Gali, Arvind Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi. In 1996 his father become unwell; there was no one to look after him. Plaintiff is his only son ; his mother had already died; his sister is married. Plaintiff along with his family shifted to the house of his father to look after him. He left behind his cousin Smt.Balvinder Kaur who started living in the house. Balvinder Kaur got married on 20.10.2001; she left for her matrimonial home. Plaintiff and his wife used to visit the house to clean it periodically.

(iii) In May and June 2002, plaintiff on reaching his house saw that defendants No. 1 and 2 had unauthorisedly broken the locks of the first floor and had entered into the property. On query he was informed that defendant No. 3 had executed documents of sale in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendants No. 1 and 2 staked their claim over the suit property. In the first instance plaintiff did not approach the police; he thought better sense would prevail; both the parties tried to settle the matter with the intervention of the relatives. Defendants No. 1 and 2, however, did not pay any heed.

(iv) Plaintiff had purchased this property for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant No. 3; at the time of the purchase of the suit property on 1.10.1990, the defendant No. 3 had besides executing an agreement to sell, general power of attorney and a will in favour of the plaintiff had also handed over the earlier title documents of the suit property to the plaintiff.

(v) On 08.8.2002, a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff but no action was taken. Thereafter on 23.8.2002 the plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 448/380/420/34 of the IPC read with Section 120B of the IPC against the defendants which is stated to be pending in the court of concerned M.M.

(vi) The intention of the defendant had become dishonest; he failed to vacate the suit property. Suit was accordingly filed.

(vii) In the joint written statement filed by defendants No. 1 and 2, it was stated that they had purchased this property from defendant No. 3 vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will dated 01.12.2001 which were duly registered with the Registrar. Defendant No. 3 had handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to defendants No. 1 and 2.

(viii) Defendant No. 3 was the sister of defendant No. 1.She had thereafter been dropped from the array of the parties.

(ix) Trial Judge framed five issues. Four witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants.

(x) The oral and the documentary evidence was examined. The Agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt and Will dated 1.10.1990 Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/E were not disputed by the defendants. However, the defendants plea that the subsequent documents executed by defendant No. 3 in their favour and vide which the earlier will of Mahender Kaur executed in favour of the plaintiff stood cancel