RSA No.518 of 2009 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.518 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 11.03.2010 Sanjay Kumar .. Appellant Versus Smt. Raksha Garg and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Dheeraj Bali, Advocate for the appellant Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4 Mr.Balwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr.Avinash Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7 AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the compromise decree in a suit for specific performance. The father of the appellant had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 4. Suit for specific performance was decreed. In appeal, respondents No.5 and 9 compromised the matter with the respondents No.1 to 4 whereunder, in consideration for settlement of the dispute half of the land in dispute would be re-transferred back to the said respondents No.5 and 9 while the respondents No.1 to 4 would get half of the land in dispute. The present appellant, who is the third brother of the respondents No.5 and 9, is agitating this matter on the ground that in the year, 2002, the property in dispute had fallen to his share in an internal RSA No.518 of 2009 (O & M) ::2:: partition between three brothers. When the compromise was effected, he moved an application for transposing him as appellant, however, the learned Lower Appellate Court decided to act on the compromise on the ground that any inter se transfer between the family of the appellant was hit by the doctrine of lis pendence. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that he has no objection to the compromise in principal but release of half of the land should have been in his favour and not in favour of the respondents No.5 and 9. In my opinion, the applicability of doctrine of lis pendence in the present case is unexceptionable. In these circumstances, this appeal has to be dismissed, however, the appellant would have the right to lay claim to half the property against his brothers in any independent appropriate proceedings. . Consequently, this appeal as well as the stay application along with Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, are dismissed. March 11, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE