IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2983 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 5.7.2010 Darshan Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sohan Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.12150-CII of 2010 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2983 of 2010(O&M) As per the averments made in this petition, a decree for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 10.7.1997 was passed in favour of respondent No.1 and against respondent No.2 on 17.4.2003 with a direction to respondent No.2 to execute the sale deed and get the same registered in favour of respondent No.1 on receipt of the balance sale consideration within two months from the date of judgment. Respondent No.1 filed a petition for execution of the aforesaid decree. Warrant of possession was issued in favour of respondent No.1 in those execution proceedings. The petitioner who is a third party and stranger to the aforesaid decree filed objections stating therein that he along with his brothers Sukhraj Singh and Harbans Singh had purchased the suit property measuring 3 marlas for a valuable consideration in good faith from Gurjit Singh and Baljit Singh sons of Chand Singh of Mansha Singh residents of Moga vide registered sale deed dated 8.5.1998 and later on Harbans Singh and Sukhraj Singh sold their share in the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 5.4.2002 and thus, he was owner in possession of the suit property. The mutation of the said property was also CR No.2983 of 2010(O&M) -2- sanctioned in his name and the decree in question cannot be executed against the objector/petitioner. The aforesaid petition was contested by the respondent- decree holder. It was specifically stated in the reply that the petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser as he was claiming the ownership of the property in dispute being transferor pendente lite as his vendors were not competent to execute the alleged sale deeds in his favour during the pendency of the list between the parties and during the subsistence of valid agreement dated 10.7.1997 in his favour. The Executing Court framed the issues in the proceedings and after considering the evidence on record and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the aforesaid objection petition. The objector/petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.4.2010. In this case the petitioner-Objector is claiming right to the property being a stranger to the decree on the ground that he has purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 5.12.2002 and was not a party to the decree sought to be executed. Admittedly, the impugned decree has never been challenged by the petitioner wherein agreement to sell dated 10.7.1997 executed in favour of Sohan Singh decree-holder was upheld and thus, from the date of subsistence of valid agreement dated 10.7.1997, any sale subsequent thereto in favour of the objector-petitioner will not give him any right to claim title in the suit property. Dismissed. July 5, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE