Civil Revision No.3290 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3290 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.7.2009 Hunny Sandhu ......Petitioner Versus Gianeshwar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below, whereby an application for grant of ad-interim injunction, has been dismissed. The plaintiff alleges to have purchased ½ share of the land measuring 800 square yards, vide sale deed dated 11.2.2004 from one Mahavir Prasad. The other ½ share was sold to one Baldev Singh, defendant No.5. Subsequently, Baldev Singh sold his half share in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner on 2.9.2005. Thus, the plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession of the suit property having purchased the same from Mahavir Prasad and Baldev Singh. In reply, it has been pointed out that in fact, Sadhu Ram, father Civil Revision No.3290 of 2009 (2) of Mahavir Prasad has sold plot Nos. 22 and 23 to Promila Syal; Usha Badhawan vide sale deed dated 8.3.1972. It is further pointed out that 800 square yards of the property allegedly purchased by the plaintiff comprises of 4 plots bearing Nos. 5, 6, 22 and 23, which are part of Khasra Nos. 459 and 460. It has been further pointed out that Sadhu Ram and Ved Parkash, the other co-owners of plot Nos. 5 and 6 sold the said property to Manmohan Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 8.3.1972. It was, thus, alleged that Promila Syal; Usha Badhwan and Manmohan were the first purchasers of the aforesaid plot from the original owners. Both the Courts have considered the respective contentions and found that the petitioner cannot be said to be owner of the property in view of prior sale of the land by the owners in favour of Promila Syal; Usha Badhawan and Manmohan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the sale deeds propounded by the defendants are of the year 1972, but no mutation for more than 32 years was sanctioned and that the petitioner has purchased the property after verification of the title of the owner from the revenue record. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. The defendants have set up title on the basis of prior sale of the year 1972. Even if the mutation is not sanctioned in favour of the defendants or the purchasers thereof, that will not mean that the property was not sold by father of Mahavir Prasad, the vendor of the present petitioner. It is well settled that the mutation is not a document of title. Therefore, non sanction of the mutation will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff regarding purchase of the property. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity Civil Revision No.3290 of 2009 (3) in the order passed by the Court below, which may require interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.7.2009 ds