In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.158 of 2005 ..... Date of decision:14.1.2008 Isa .....Appellant v. Smt. Sharifan .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff-appellant filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.11.1992. A sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was paid as earnest money and Rs.60,000/- was to be paid at the time of sale. The sale deed was to be executed by 20.7.1993. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant which decree has been reversed by the learned lower appellate Court and is assailed in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff on sound reasoning, however, the learned lower appellate Court has erred in reversing the findings. It is submitted that Bhim Singh was the owner of the land and he had suffered a decree on 5.10.1988 in favour of his grand-son Usman son of the defendant-respondent Sharifan. Thereafter, the said Bhim Singh suffered another decree on 14.9.1992 in favour of his daughter Sharifan. According to the learned counsel the decree dated 5.10.1988 in favour of R.S.A. No.158 of 2005 [2] Usman was/is a nullity as Usman had no pre-existing right to the property of his grand-father Bhim Singh. As such the decree dated 14.9.1992 in favour of Sharifan suffered by Bhim Singh is valid and the learned lower appellate Court has erred in holding that Sharifan (defendant-respondent) had no right to sell the property. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that the decree dated 5.10.1988 suffered by Bhim Singh in favour of his grand-son Usman was challenged by Bhim Singh by way of Civil Suit No.57 of 1997. The said suit of Bhim Singh was dismissed on 2.4.1997. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1988 suffered by Bhim Singh in favour of his grand-son Usman was held to be valid. Therefore, it is evident that Sharifan had no right to enter into an agreement to sell the land of which she was not the owner. To hold that Usman had no pre- existing right to the property of Bhim Singh and, therefore, decree dated 5.10.1988 is invalid would amount to nullifying the effect of the decree dated 2.4.1997 in the suit between Bhim Singh and Usman. Even otherwise this was not a question raised before the trial Court. In the circumstances, no question of law is involved in the present case. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed. January 14, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*