M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.2.2016 passed in R.S.A. No. 4015 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and, consequently, has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant herein (original plaintiff). The original plaintiff (appellant herein) has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The facts leading to this appeal in nutshell are as follows: That the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the original plaintiff') instituted Civil Suit No. 159 of 2004 against the respondents herein (original defendants) seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property ­ Plot No. 336 (old) 548 (new), measuring 420 square meters at Block B in the residential colony known as Sushant Lok, Guugaon. It was also prayed to declare the sale deed dated 28.1.2002 executed in favour of the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 by original defendant no. 1 as illegal, null and void. In the alternate, it was also prayed for decree of possession of the suit property by directing the original defendant no. 1 to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 from further selling/alienating/transferring the suit property in question to anyone else, except the plaintiff, in any manner whatsoever. 3.1 It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the suit property was booked by the original defendant no. 1 with the developers - M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s Ansal Properties') However, by an Agreement to Sell dated 20.4.1987 executed by the original defendant no. 1 being the original allottee from M/s Ansal Properties in favour of the plaintiff, original defendant no. 1 sold/agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that at the time of execution of the said written agreement dated 20.4.1987, the plaintiff paid the sale consideration. However, it was agreed to execute the sale deed as and when the developers M/s Ansal Properties fulfills its obligation and complete the formalities. It was further the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that simultaneously one General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of the plaintiff by the original defendant no. 1 empowering the plaintiff to get the transfer in his favour as and when the plaintiff will deposit all installments of M/s Ansal Properties and desires to get transferred the suit property in his favour or in favour of his nominee. It was also the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the plaintiff was also put in possession. It was also the case of the original plaintiff that thereafter the plaintiff paid the stamp duty. It was further the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that, despite the above fact, when the developers M/s Ansal Properties allotted the plot in question and executed the title deed in favour of original defendant no. 1 (being the original allottee), the original defendant no. 1 did not transfer the plot in question in his name and, in fact, illegally transferred the suit property in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 on a meagre amount of sale consideration by executing the sale deed dated 28.1.2002. With the above averments and prayers, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon. 3.2 The suit was resisted to by the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 by filing the written statement. It was the case of original defendant nos. 2 and 3 that they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit property for consideration. It was also the case on behalf of the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession and permanent injunction shall not be maintainable unless there is a prayer for decree for specific performance. It was the case on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3 that unless the plaintiff renounces the plea of his title, he cannot seek decree of specific performance. It was further the case on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3 that the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and original defendant no. 1. It was further case on behalf of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 that the suit is not within the limitation. That, thereafter, original defendant nos. 2 and 3 also filed the written statement denying the allegations and averments in the plaint. 3.3 It appears that, thereafter, the original plaintiff submitted an application to amend the plaint by seeking the prayer of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987 submitted under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, the same came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court and attained the finality. 3.4 On the basis of the averments in the plaint and the written statement, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? 2. Whether the sale deed dated 28.1.2002 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void on the ground alleged in plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession in the alternative with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? 4A. Whether the defendant no. 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers as alleged? 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? 6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction of court fee?" 3.5 Thereafter, both the parties adduced the evidence, both oral as well as the documentary. That, thereafter, on appreciation of evidence and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the original plaintiff. The learned trial Court passed the decree for recovery of Rs.2,46,645.50 with 9% interest throughout its realization. That the learned trial Court passed the aforesaid decree dated 19.10.2010 in favour of defendant no. 1 only. The suit and other reliefs came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court. ;