JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

The Appellant in the present Appeal is impugning the judgment dated 05.01.2022 (“Impugned judgment”) in CS DJ No. 209865/2016 passed by the Court of learned ADJ-05, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi titled as ‘Smt. Gunjan Kumar v. Shri Vipin Kumar Parwanda’ Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the Suit for Injunction and Possession filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1.

FACTS GERMANE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 (Original Plaintiff in the Civil Suit) that Respondent No. 2 (Original Defendant No. 2 in the Civil Suit) and Appellant (Original Defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit) are wife and husband and they purchased a property i.e., plot bearing No. 139, Block A, Kalkaji Extension Scheme, New Delhi admeasuring 160 sq. meters from one Shri Prabhu Singh vide Agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney (GPA) both dated 24.04.1992. Further, the said property was converted from leasehold to freehold by both Appellant and Respondent No. 2 vide Conveyance deed dated 11.07.1994. Over the said land, both the defendants constructed a residential house, comprising of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor.

3. It is further the case of Respondent No. 1 that vide a General Power of Attorney dated 04.04.1995, Respondent No. 2 authorized the Appellant to sell the aforesaid property and receive such sale consideration.

4. Pursuant to that, both the defendants expressed their interest to sell the ground floor of the aforesaid property and thereupon discussions were held with regard to that. On 01.11.2009, Appellant entered into an Agreement to Sell with Mr. Ashwani Kumar/husband of Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff with respect to the ground floor of the property i.e., plot bearing No. 139, Block A, Kalkaji Extension Scheme, New Delhi (“suit property”), whereunder the Appellant agreed to sell the suit property to Mr. Ashwani Kumar/husband of Respondent No. 1 for a sale consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/- (Twenty-Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only). Respondent No. 1 claims that on the same day, a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Twelve Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) was paid in cash as part of payment/advance, to the Appellant against the total sale consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-. Further, the balance sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs Only) were also received by the defendants vide cheque bearing No. 884511 dated 15.01.2010. Respondent No. 1 further claims that as per one of the clauses of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.11.2009, the sale deed was to be registered either in the name of Mr. Ashwani Kumar/husband of Respondent No. 1 or that of his nominee. Subsequently, the sale deed dated 15.01.2010 with respect to the suit property was registered in the name of Respondent No. 1 on 22.01.2010.

5. Further, it is the case of Respondent No. 1 that at the time of executing the sale deed, though it was recorded in the document that actual physical possession of the suit property had been handed over by the defendants to Respondent No. 1, but the defendants had expressed some difficulty in handing over possession on account of the their daughter's final school examinations and they had promised Respondent No. 1 that they would hand over vacant peaceful possession to her immediately after their daughter's examinations were over. However, when the defendants continued occupying the suit property and failed to hand over peaceful possession thereof to Respondent No. 1, she was compelled to institute the suit in December, 2010. Pertinently, Respondent No. 1 and her husband also came to know that the defendants entered into various agreements to sell with various other persons and one of those alleged purchaser namely Shri Sanjeev Malhotra had also filed an FIR against the defendants.

6. Both Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant filed separate written statement to the suit. In the written statement filed by Respondent No. 2, it was stated tha