JUDGMENT :

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

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 04.05.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit property bearing no. D-213, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi (hereinafter "suit property").

2.

2(i). The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that he had purchased the suit property from the owner/sellerSmt. Vaikunthi Devi by usual Documentation dated 26.04.2001 which included the Agreement To Sell, Power Of Attorney, Receipt, Possession Letter, etc. The Power Of Attorney and the Will were registered before the Sub-Registrar.

2(ii). It was pleaded that the original owner/allottee was Sh. Lachoo Ram who sold the suit property to Smt. Vainkunthi Devi on 19.10.1987 and thereafter the appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property. On purchase of the suit property, Smt. Vainkunthi Devi asked the appellant/plaintiff to create a tenancy in her favour and therefore a tenancy was created by the execution of a Rent Deed in favour of the husband of Smt. Vainkunthi Devi, namely, Sh. Prabhu Dayal with respect to the third floor and one shop on the ground floor of the suit property.

2(iii). The appellant/plaintiff pleads that in July, 2005 when he went to the suit property, he found that some persons were in illegal possession, and who were dispossessed by the police after a police complaint was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Once again, when the appellant/plaintiff visited the suit property in 2006, three persons, namely, Sh. Shanker Lal, Sh. Pardeep Kumar and Sh. Yogendir Tyagi threatened the appellant/plaintiff, and therefore, the subject suit was filed as respondent nos. 4 to 8/defendant nos. 4 to 8 were found to be in possession of the suit property.

3. It is noted that respondent nos. 1 to 3/defendant nos. 1 to 3 were proceeded against ex parte in the trial court as they failed to appear after service by publication. They were proceeded ex parte vide the trial court order dated 03.02.2014.

4.

4(i). The suit was contested by respondent nos. 4 to 7/defendant nos. 4 to 7 who filed a joint written statement. It was pleaded that respondent no. 5/defendant no. 5 had got executed in his favor a Power of Attorney on 19.07.2005 for the entire property and the sale consideration was paid to Smt. Vainkunthi Devi and that he had received possession from Smt. Vainkunthi Devi. It was also pleaded that Smt. Vainkunthi Devi had sold one shop on the ground floor to respondent no. 7/defendant no. 7 in the year 2008 and another shop to respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 on 30.03.2010 and possession was handed over to respondent nos. 6 and 7/defendant nos. 6 and 7.

4(ii). Respondent no. 8/Defendant no. 8 separately filed his written statement and took up the same preliminary objections as the other respondent nos. 4 to 7/defendant nos. 4 to 7. He also pleaded that he was a bona fide purchasor of one shop bearing no. 2 on the ground floor. Respondent no.8/Defendant no. 8 claimed his title through Smt. Anita, Smt. Omwati and ultimately Sh. Pardeep who is said to have purchased from Smt. Vainkunthi Devi on 19.10.1987.

5. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of property no. 213, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur Delhi-34 against the defendants? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages with interest, pendente lite and future, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.

4. Relief."

6. It is noted that whereas the appellant/plaintiff led evidence, no evidence hss been led on behalf of the respondents/defendants. This is recorded in para 9 of the impugned, and this para reads as under:-

"9. At the time of trial,