VINOD KUMAR CHHABRA Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are third parties to the suit.

(2.) The second petitioner and the second respondent herein entered into an agreement for sale on 3 April 1995. A General Power of Attorney was executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner No.2. In the said General Power of Attorney, the said respondent described himself as co-owner and co-sharer of leasehold rights with structures thereon in respect of properly No. 14/26 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. A Special Power of Attorney was also, executed on the said date by the respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner No.2. Allegedly, the consideration amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- as specified in the agreement for sale has been paid by the petitioners to the said respondent. It is staled therein:

(3.) Admittedly, a suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the second respondent. In the said suit, it has been contended that Ihe property in question is a perpetual leasehold from the Government of India in terms whereof neither the construction can be raised without a sanctioned plan of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi nor any transfer of property could be effected nor even the possession could be transferred without the permission of the Land and Development Office. Allegedly, the father of the first and second respondents executed a Will dated September 1991 bequeathing the ground door and terrace rights to the second respondent and the first floor to the first respondent. Hlaving found that unauthorized construction was started by respondent No.2 on 11' February 1995 as a result whereof obstruction to the use by the first floor was created by the second respondents; the first respondent in the said suit filed an application for injunction on 17 February 1995. In response to the notice issued in this behalf on the said application, the second respondent stated: