VINAY KATHURIA Vs. CAPT RAJESH KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants seek to assail the decree passed by the learned trial court in a suit for injunction, restraining the appellants from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the terrace rights of the respondents over and above the second floor of the suit property No.E-220, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.

(2.) The facts as set out in the suit filed by the respondents which are material for deciding the present appeal are as follows. The father of the respondent Shri Tirath Ram Mehta, had purchased a plot bearing No.E-220, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi measuring 212 sq. yards for the sale consideration of Rs.3,392/- as far back as on 18th September, 1961 and was living there with his family. Shri Tirath Ram Mehta expired on 4th February, 2001 and was survived by his widow, four sons and a daughter. During his life time, Shri Tirath Ram Mehta had given a General Power of Attorney dated 14th September, 1992 to the appellant No.5, authorising him to sell the entire second floor of the suit property. There was no mention in the said General Power of Attorney that the appellant No.5 had the right to sell the terrace floor. On the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, the appellant No.5 sold the front and rear portions of the second floor of the suit property on 04.03.1993 to the appellants No.3 and 4. Separate Sale Deeds were executed in favour of the "Vendees" i.e. the appellants No.3 and 4, duly signed by Shri Tirath Ram Mehta as "Vendor" and by the appellant No.5 as the "Confirming Vendor" in respect of the front and rear portions of the second floor respectively. On 12.03.1993, that is, eight days after the execution of the aforesaid sale deeds dated 04.03.1993, late Shri Tirath Ram Mehta revoked the General Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of the appellant No.5, allegedly on the ground that the latter was trying to exceed the powers given to him, and the appellant No.5 thereafter ceased to be the Power of Attorney holder of late Shri Tirath Ram Mehta.

(3.) According to the respondents-plaintiffs, a perusal of the documents executed by the appellant no.5, in favour of the appellants no.3 and 4, as a "Confirming Vendor" and by the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff as the "Vendor", i.e., the Sale Deeds dated 4 th March, 1993, clearly show that the "Vendees" were not entitled to any ownership right in respect of the common areas, stairs, terrace/roof or any other portion of the suit property, except the share purchased by them.