SANJAY KUMAR Vs. VED PRAKASH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Shimla in case No. 23 -1/2010.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the decree holders -Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "decree holders" for convenience sake) instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 24.4.2003 against the present Petitioner -judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as the "judgment debtor" for convenience sake). The Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit on 12.7.2010 and the judgment debtor was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of decree holders qua land measuring 0 -7 biswas of his share comprised in khata/khatauni No. 8 min/19 min, khasra Nos. 226/2/1, 226/2/2/1 and 552/410/224/1 situated in village Patiog, Hadbast No. 107, Tehsil and District Shimla in terms of agreement dated 24.4.2003 on completion of all codal formalities. The decree holders filed an execution petition for execution of decree dated 12.7.2010. The judgment debtor filed objections to the same, inter -alia, on the grounds that decree holder was neither agriculturist nor permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh, thus, he could not purchase the land in view of the embargo put under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was also stated that Dropti Devi was not a legally wedded wife of decree holder. He also pleaded that the decree was not executable as sale consideration has not been paid. The decree holders filed reply to the objections raised by the judgment debtor. According to them, no permission under Section 118 of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was required. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 4 dismissed the objections raised by the judgment debtor on 16.2.2011. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) THE judgment and decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 12.7.2010 whereby the judgment debtor was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holders. The judgment debtor can not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. He was supposed to know about the status of the decree holder at the time when the agreement was entered into between the parties on 24.4.2003. Whether the decree holders, Ved Prakash and Dropti Devi are permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh or not is to be seen by the Registering Authority at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The sale deed is to be executed on completion of all the codal formalities. The decree holders are required to fulfill all the requirements of law for registration of the sale deed before the Registering Authority. The sale deed can only be registered, if decree holders are found eligible. It is in these circumstances that the Executing Court has directed the execution of the sale deed in terms of the decree dated 12.7.2010 and present the same before the appropriate authority on or before 28.2.2011. The order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Shimla is reasoned. He has come to a right conclusion that on the basis of the judgment and decree, the sale deed was to be registered after completing all the codal formalities. There is neither any illegality nor any procedural impropriety in the order dated 16.2.2011.