The trial Court did not appreciate that in the registered sale deed there is specific recital of delivery of possession of the suit property to the petitioner, which also falsifies receipt (Annexure P-9), mentioning delivery of possession of the suit property to respondent-defendant No.2 by respondent-defendant No.1, because, once respondent-defendant No.1 had delivered possession of the suit property to respondent-defendant No.2 on the date, when the receipt in question was executed, in that eventuality, respondent-defendant No.1 was not in possession of the suit property after that day and the fact with regard to delivery of possession could not have been recited in the sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner. The trial Court if, was not agreeing with the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner for de-exhibition of aforesaid receipt, in that eventuality, at least it ought to have observed that receipt dated 03.08.2004 (Annexure P-9) had no legal sanctity. The trial Court also failed to appreciate that receipt (Annexure P-9) was allegedly executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 and one Vipan Kumar, who had sold suit property to respondent No.3 without having any legal right, title or interest in the suit property.
