MUKUL MUDGAL ( 1 ) THIS is a suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking for passing a decree ofpossession with regard to the property bearing No. 16, situated at First Floor in Deshbandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, consisting of four rooms. ( 2 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that on 2. 12. 1996 the defendant executeda receipt acknowledging the sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 towards the sale consideration asalso other documents which included a General Power of Attorney and a Specialpower of Attorney since the defendant was desirous of selling the property. ( 3 ) IT is the plaintiffs case that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendantthat after receipt of the payment and also after the execution of various documentsthe defendant will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the aforesaid property. It is further the plaintiff s case that after receiving the payment and executing thevarious documents, the defendant contracted various other property dealers fordisposing of the property at a higher value. ( 4 ) IT is averred on behalf of the plaintiffs in the plaint that on 19. 4. 1997 when theywent to the spot in order to get possession of the said property the defendant bluntlyrefused to handover the possession to the plaintiffs despite the fact that the plaintiffstried their level best to persuade the defendant to hand over the possession of theproperty. ( 5 ) IT is the plaintiffs case that the defendant has no right whatsoever for keeping thepossession of the property with him as he has already executed lot of documents infavour of the plaintiff and accepted the sale consideration and is, therefore, dutybound in law to hand over the property situated at First Floor, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ( 6 ) THE defendant failed to appear in the matter despite service by way of publicationand affixation at his last address. The defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per thecourt s Order dated 13. 9. 1999. Thereafter the evidence by way of affidavit has beenfiled on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1. The averments made in the plaint have beensupported by the aforesaid affidavit. The plaintiffs have also proved the followingdocuments:si. No. Description 1. Receipt dated 2. 12. 1996. 2. General Power of Attorney dated 6. 12. 1996. 3. Special Power of Attorney dated 6. 12. 1964. Death Report dated 15. The averments made in the plaint have beensupported by the aforesaid affidavit. The plaintiffs have also proved the followingdocuments:si. No. Description 1. Receipt dated 2. 12. 1996. 2. General Power of Attorney dated 6. 12. 1996. 3. Special Power of Attorney dated 6. 12. 1964. Death Report dated 15. 7. 1975. G. P. A. at Pages 34-36 of the paper-book. 6. Affidavit dated 2. 12. 1987. Allotment order dt. 4. 6. 1968. Letter dated 14. 9. 1979. 9. List of LRs. at Pages 42-43 of the paper-book. 10. Statement No. 31137. 11. S. P. A. dated 6. 12. 1981. 12. Will of Ms. Neelam Jain dated 2. 12. 1996. 13. Will of Ms. Saroj Bala dated 2. 12. 1996 There is no rebuttal of these pleas. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree with costs. The suit is decreed asprayed. A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against thedefendant with costs with regard to the property bearing No. 1, comprising of fourroom set, (first floor) situated at Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (as shown red in the site plan ). Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. The suit is thus disposed of accordingly.