ORDER

1. The civil suit CS(OS) No.100/2010, from which the issues being considered and adjudicated upon here arise, was instituted by Smt. Seema Thakur, wife of late Sh. Bansi Lal Thakur (“the first noticee”) through her attorney Sh. Vijay Kapoor (“the second noticee”) besides against the Union of India, through Ministry of Urban Development and Land and Development Office of the Government of India (impleaded as first and second defendants), also showing in the array of parties, in the plaint as originally presented, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) through its assessment and collection department as a defendant (fifth defendant). The record reveals that, on application subsequently made, by order dated 22.5.2013 passed by a division bench of this Court in RFA (OS) No. 42/2013, while the suit was restored (it having been earlier dismissed) by a learned single judge by order dated 18.02.2013, another defendant (sixth defendant) was added to the fray. The litigation though the suit, as it eventually crystallised, was essentially between the plaintiff on one hand and the three private defendants, they being Gopi Chand (third defendant), Sunita Wadhwa (fourth defendant) and Raj Kumar Bhatara (sixth defendant), the plaint praying for the following reliefs:-“ “1. The decree for declaring that the Agreement to Sale, General power of attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Receipts/Affidavits and all the other documents alleged executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.3 on 31.5.2004 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled, 2. The decree for declaring that the Conveyance deed dated 20.12.2004 executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of the defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled, 3. The decree for declaring that the conversion of the suit property from lease hold to free hold done by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled, 4. The decree for declaring that the Mutation Order dated 31.3.2005 (bearing No. Tax/KBZ/2004-05) with respect to the suit property allowed by MCD at the instance and in favour of the defendant No.3 and all the subsequent mutations with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled, 5. The decree for declaring that the Sale Deed dated 22.5.2006 with respect to the suit property executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 and all the subsequent sale deeds, if any, with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled, 6. The decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and a decree of eviction against the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any other person/entity claiming through defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi), 7. The decree of mesne profits of Rs. 7,50,000/- till the date of institution of the present suit, 8. The decree of mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month for future and pendentelite mesne profits against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any other person/entity claiming through defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi), 9. Decree for interest @ 8% to be calculated from the date of the institution of the present suit on the aforesaid amounts t be recovered, 10. Decree for awarding cost