time of a g reement to sell and further agreed to execute the sale deed as per the desir e of the plaintiff. Plaintiff fur t her asserts that General Powe r of Attorney in respect to the property was also executed in his favour by Rajesh Kumar. Plaintiff was handed over the possession of the property in p art performa n ce of the said agreement. However, Rajesh Kumar during his lifetime tran s ferred the plot in question, in favour of defendant No.4. Rajesh Kumar died leaving behind defendant No s .1 to 3 as his legal LRs. [5] Suit was contested by def e ndant Nos.1 to 3 by filing j o int written st a tement. Though, the agreeme n t to sell was not denied. Howe v er, it was cl a imed that allotment made in f a vour of the plaintiff was cance l led by defen d ant No.5/HUDA. Resultantly, R ajesh Kumar, cancelled the Po w er of Attorn e y executed in favour of the pl a intiff by a registered documen t on 17.01.20 0 2 and informed the plaintiff as well. Later on, in terms of the orders p a ssed by Hon’ble the Apex Co u rt dated 21.03.2002 the plot w as restored. Rajesh Kumar further entered into agreement to sell with Mo h an Lal with o ut any right, interest or title. I t was further claimed that the s uit was barr e d by time. Defendant No.4 filed separate written statement. In addition t o the pleas raised by defendant Nos.1 to 3, defendant No.4 cla i ms himself t o be a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and ha v ing acted in good faith with due diligence . On the basis of the pleadi n gs, followin g issued were framed:-
