2008 (12) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... behind the respondent as his sole legal heir. The respondent executed an agreement to sell dated 19.6.1992 in favour of the appellant qua the suit land. The respondent had undertaken to get the requisite mutation qua the suit land sanctioned in his favour and to execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the appellant as per the agreement dated 19.6.1992. However, the respondent failed to execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the appellant despite repeated requests and a legal notice by the appellant. Through the suit, the appellant sought a decree for possession of suit land by way of specific performance of contract of sale dated 19.6.1992 in his favour. 3. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement. He rais .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt prayed that the suit of the appellant be dismissed. 4. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002 dismissed the suit of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant filed an appeal. While allowing the appeal to the extent of decreeing the suit of the appellant for specific performance of the contract to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property, the Lower Appellate Court found that the respondent had inherited only 1/3rd share of his father-Chandgi Ram whereas vide impugned agreement to sell dated 19.5.1992, the respondent is shown to have sold the entire share of his father-Chandgi Ram by showing himself as the sole legal heir of Chandgi Ram Thus, he could not hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p the appellant, only if the suit property was shown to be exclusively in the name of the respondent in the revenue record at the relevant time. Admittedly, the suit property was not recorded exclusively in the name of the respondent at the relevant time. Under the law, the respondent can not be permitted to sell the property belonging to the others. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is of no help to him. In this case, the respondent has no title vested in him to the extent of 2/3rd share of the property in dispute and therefore, he was not competent to alienate the same. 9. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X