J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-II (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No.131/2014 partly decreeing the civil suit for specific performance to the extent of refund of the earnest consideration in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the respondents/defendants. However, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present appeal as the prayers of the plaintiff to the extent of the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.07.2008, possession of property in question, declaration of documents dated 01.11.2008 as null and void, cancellation of documents dated 01.11.2008 and permanent injunction to the appellant/plaintiff holding the respondent/defendant No. 2 as bona fide purchaser of the property in question were denied.

2. A brief account of the facts would portray that the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant No.1 (since deceased) entered into an agreement to sell on 29.07.2008 (Ex. PW-1/B) with respect to property No. B-100, Gali No. 12, Phase-10, Poll No. 6721, Shiv Vihar, East Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94, measuring 120 Sq. yards (hereinafter „suit property‟). The respondent/defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant/plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.18,45,000/-, out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell by the appellant/plaintiff to respondent/defendant No.1 in the presence of witnesses. The said transaction was noted in the agreement to sell and a separate bayana receipt (Ex. PW-1/C) was also executed. Both the parties agreed to the execution of the sale deed after payment of the balance consideration of Rs.16,45,000/- on or before 31.10.2008 before the Sub-Registrar.

3. On the agreed date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 31.10.2008, though the appellant/plaintiff claimed to have appeared before the Sub-Registrar along with the balance consideration but the respondent/defendant no.1 did not turn up. On the following morning, the plaintiff went to the house of defendant No.1 which ended up in a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff served a legal notice upon the respondent/defendant No.1 dated 03.11.2008 (Ex.PW- 1/E). However, to the dismay of the appellant/plaintiff, the respondent/defendant No.1 by then had already executed a set of documents namely, an agreement for sale (Ex.PW-1/L) a possession letter (Ex.PW-1/M), a General Power of Attorney (Ex.-PW1/K) and a will deed (Ex.PW-1/P), dated 01.11.2008 (all documents in favour of the respondent/defendant No.2). Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent/defendant no.1, the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance, declaration, cancellation of documents, possession and permanent injunction.

4. The respondents/defendants opposed the civil suit and had denied the claim of the appellant/plaintiff in the written statement filed therein. The respondent/defendant no. 1 has stated that the claims and statements made by the appellant/plaintiff were without any rational basis and the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2008 (Ex. PW-1/B) could not be executed because the appellant/plaintiff remained absent and had failed to pay the balance consideration amount to him. It was contended that the absence of the appellant/plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deed and consequently, non-execution of the sale deed discharged respondent/defendant No.1 from all encumbrances and thus, he sold the suit property to the respondent/defendant No.2. During the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent/defendant No.1 had expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 5. The respondent/defendant No.2 in his written statement claimed that he was the bona fide purchaser of the suit property as the said property was sold by the respondent/defendant No.1 in his favour after the expiry of