R.S.A No. 2645 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2645 of 2007 Date of decision : December 23, 2008 Khushwant Kaur & others ...... Appellants. through Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate v. Karam Singh and another, ...... Respondents through Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This is an appeal against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondent No.1 for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Counsel for the appellants has argued that since the appellants (subsequent vendees) had purchased the property for value and had no knowledge of the earlier agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.1, the alternative plea of the respondent for damages should have been decreed. It may be noticed that the learned Courts below had relied upon admissions of DW3 to hold that in-fact Malkiat Singh, the subsequent vendee had knowledge of the earlier agreement to sell. Learned counsel has further urged that on a reading of the said statement, this admission would not be R.S.A No. 2645 of 2007 ::2:: borne out from the record. Be that as it may, even apart from this entry, there is no evidence which has been led by the appellants to show that they had made any inquiries about the title of the seller or any cloud which may be existing thereon at the time when the sale deed in their favour was executed. Consequently, I do not find it a case of exceptional hardship so as to deny the relief of specific performance to the respondents. In the circumstances, I hold that the questions of law proposed in this appeal do not arise and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 23, 2008. JUDGE `kk'