his favour, which according to Mr. Jagtap, empowered the Plaintiff not only to construct flats/shops/garages etc. on the suit property, but to also handover possession thereof to the purchasers. He would submit that if Plaintiff himself was not to be put in possession, he could not have been empowered to hand over possession of flats to purchasers. That such a clause in the power of attorney would undoubtedly indicate the fact that the Plaintiff was put in physical possession of the suit property. He would further submit that except execution of the development agreement and power of attorney in favour of Defendant Nos.4 to 7, there is nothing to indicate that the possession of the suit property was taken away from the Plaintiff in any manner by Defendant Nos.1 to 3, for being handed over to Defendant Nos.4 to 7. He would place on record photographs showing Plaintiff being physically dragged out of the suit property on the strength of the injunction order passed by the Trial Court. He would submit that the factum of use of police machinery for physically dragging the Plaintiff out of the suit property would once again indicate that he was in possession thereon. He would submit that the Plaintiff had fenced the suit property for protecting it encroachment and now the injunction order is being misused by the Defendant Nos.4 to 7 for physically dispossessing the Plaintiff from the property.
