AJIT SINGH GILL Vs. ARVIND KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant no.1 has filed this application for direction that the defendant no.2 be not permitted to cross examine the plaintiff no.1 appearing as PW1 and who has already been cross examined by defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 has opposed this application and sought right to cross examine PW1.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs as per the amended plaint is that the defendants no.1 and 2 were the owners of property no. 324, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi; that there were huge arrears of property tax with respect to the said property; that the defendant no.2 had apprised defendant no.1 of the arrears of property tax but the defendant no.1 chose to ignore the same; that the defendant no.1 asked the defendant no.2 to explore sale of the property for clearance of the said dues; that the defendant no.2 offered the said property for sale to the plaintiffs; that the defendant no.1 agreed to sell his share of the property to the plaintiffs and informed the defendant no.2 that the defendant no.2 may execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendant no.1 also as the defendant no.2 had the power of attorney executed by the defendant no.1 in her favour for affecting such sale; that the defendant no.2 sold the property to the plaintiffs and the sale consideration in equal amounts was paid to the defendants no. 1 and 2. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were thereafter in possession of the property but the defendant no.1 started disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs of the said property and also placed his locks over the locks of the plaintiffs on the said property.

(3.) The defendant no.1 contested the suit and denied that the defendant no.2 was authorized to sell the property on his behalf and further denied that the defendant no.2 could sell the defendant no.1's share of the property.