IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3905 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.9.2010 Khattu Ram ....Petitioner Versus Charan Dass & anr. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner purchased some land from Surinder Singh-respondent No.2. Prior to the sale there was an agreement to sell in favour of the present respondent No.1 qua 23 kanals 4 marlas of land executed by the same vendor. Since the said vendor failed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1, it resulted in filing of a suit for specific performance which was decreed in his favour and while doing so in para no.14 of the judgment it was observed as follows :- “14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract Ex.P1 qua the land measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas. It is clear from C.R.No.3905 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the jamabandi for the year 1991-92 (Ex.P14) that after execution of Ex.P-1, owner Surinder Singh could transfer only 16 kanals-9 marlas out of khewat No.2. However, Surinder Singh had transferred 20 kanals-10 marlas out of Khewat No.2 vide sale deed dated 13.6.1998 (Ex.P.13) in favour of defendant Khattu Ram, so the said sale is invalid and illegal to the extent of 4 kanals -01 marla out of khewat No.2.” Implying thereby that the suit of respondent No.1 was decreed enabling him to execute the same qua 23 kanals 4 marlas which was the subject-matter of dispute in the agreement to sell. The said vendor Surinder Singh had alienated some land in favour of the petitioner and in this very paragraph an observation has been made that even though said Surinder Singh was owner in possession of 16 kanals 9 marlas , hence he had no right to alienate more land and the sale qua 4 kanals 1 marla in favour of the present petitioner was held to be invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to read that by virtue of this observation the rest of the sale deed has been held to be valid. I am afraid, no such interpretation can be added to the judgment rendered in favour of respondent No.1 which categorically grants him a right to execute the decree qua 23 kanals 4 marlas of land which is the subject-matter of the sale deed. Prior there to also a civil revision was filed in which the court had observed that there was some dispute regarding constructed area in one kanal of land and granted the right to respondent No.1 to get the premises evaluated from the court of competent jurisdiction so as to C.R.No.3905 of 2010 (O&M) -3- compensate the petitioner for the constructed area. This offer was spurned by the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid and the fact that the impugned order has been justifiably passed rejecting the objection of the petitioner, the revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed. 16.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss