ESA-39-2025(O&M) 1 124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ESA-39-2025(O&M) Date of decision:08.07.2025 Surender Kumar ..Appellant Versus Murlidhar Sharma and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. M.K.Garg, Advocate for the appellant ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral) 1. In this Execution Second Appeal, the appellant (objector) assails the correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the Executing Court, which in appeal, has been affirmed by the appellate court. He claims to have purchased the property from Sh.Vinod Kumar s/o Sh.Radhey Shyam vide registered sale deed dated 06.12.2011. The First Appellate Court has found that Radhey Shyam sold the entire share in the land in the following manner:- Sr. No Area sold Document Dated Khasra No. Exhibit 1. 24-44 Sq. Yards Sale deed no.364 06.10.88 225//20/2/3 A27 2. 181-50 Sq. Yards Decree 122-C 17.5.90 225//20/2/3 A 18 3. 125 Sq. Yards 353 17.7.90 225//20/2/3 and 20/1/5 A28 4. 155 Sq. Yards 387 2.8.90 225//20/2/3 and 24//16/1 A29 5. 161 Sq. Yards 424 21.8.90 225//20/2/3 A30 6. 21 Sq. Yards Sale deed No.584 8.11.90 225//20/2/3 A31 7. 222 Sq. Yards Decree 11.11.93 225//20/2/3 A33 REKHA SIHAG 2025.07.10 04:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh ESA-39-2025(O&M) 2 1769 8. 223 Sq. Yards Decree 1770 11.11.90 225//20/2/3 A34 9. 124 Sq. Yards 744 18.2.97 225//16/1 It is 224//16/1 A35 10. 19 Sq. Yards 1010 23.1.01 No khasra number mentioned in sale deed A36 2. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that these sale deeds were not reflected in the revenue record. Hence, the appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the property. 3. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the appellant. 4. The appellant has purchased the property from Sh.Vinod Kumar. Sh.Vinod Kumar was not having any title of the property because his father and other co-sharers had already sold the property. Hence, Sh.Vinod Kumar cannot transfer any right in favour of the appellant. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is made out. 6. Hence, dismissed. 7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. (ANIL KSHETARPAL) 08.07.2025 JUDGE rekha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No REKHA SIHAG 2025.07.10 04:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh