CR No. 888 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 888 of 2009 Date of decision February 20, 2009 Kishan Chand ....... Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner . **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision is filed by the judgment debtor in a suit for specific performance where the Executing Court has directed that the sale deed will be prepared in terms of the draft sale deed filed before Court and the document shall be presented for registration by a person authorized by the Court. The objection which was taken by the judgment debtor was that the Executing Court has not taken note of objections given by the judgment debtor that the recital in the draft sale deed did not confirm to the agreement which was subject of specific performance. The second objection was the value of the property has increased several times and the valuation could not be recited in the same manner it stood at the time of agreement. 2. The objections were summarily rejected by the Executing Court and further orders in execution were made. The revision petitioner's contentions before this Court are focused on the clause in the CR No. 888 of 2009 2 agreement which inter alia reads as under:- “That the names of few people which I mentioned as my associates at the time of purchase of said property, I will try to get these names removed. In case name of any person is incorporated in the sale certificate, it will be the responsibility of vendor to get sale deed registered from that person. I have no interest remaining. If any objection is raised or the matter reaches Court, cost of litigation shall be borne by the vendee. 3. In the draft sale deed which is prepared the recitals are inter alia as follows:- “The vendor will have no interest or title over the property under sale. In case any legal heirs or assignee of the vendor claims any right title or interest over the property sold or any legal defect in the property is discovered and the vendee is dispossessed for that reason, the expenses on litigation will be borne by vendor.” 4. According to learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is patent incompatibility between what was contained in the agreement and what is now incorporated in the draft sale deed. On perusal of the recitals, I find that the draft sale deed contains no more recitals than the usual covenant for title that the vendor gives and the vendor would not have any substantive interest after the sale. It is also specified in the draft sale deed which is approved by the Executing Court that in case any legal heirs or assignees of the vendor claim any right, title or interest over the property or legal defect in the property is discovered the expenses of such a litigation will be borne by the vendor. This recital is in no conflict with the recital found in the agreement which contemplates CR No. 888 of 2009 3 that the litigation expenses that shall be borne by the vendee shall be expenses that may have to be incurred in the event of any of the assignees of the vendor who were involved at the time of the purchase of the property by the vendor could not obstruct. The contemplation of litigation expenses by the vendor referred to in the agreement is not with reference to any claim either of the vendor or his legal heirs or assignees. The objection, therefore, that the draft sale deed which was approved does not confirm to the agreement in my view incorrect. 5. On the other hand, the preamble of the draft sale deed itself states that sale was being executed in terms of agreement to sell dated 30.9.1996 and as per decree passed by the Court. The recitals will sufficiently protect the interest of the vendor and that there are not any recitals which are inconsistent with the terms of the agreement. The objection by the learned counsel was that the value of the property has increased and the property cannot be registered at the same value as it was mentioned in the agreement. The value for the purpose of registration is a matter between the Registering Officer and the purchaser and no part of additional liability for payment of stamp duty or registration charges could ever be mulcted on the vendor. The vendor cannot complain of any disadvantage by the order passed by Executing Court. 6. With the above clarifications, the Civil revision is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 20 , 2009 archana