Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHOLANATII versus MONIKA (D) THROUGH LRS. ANDANR.

Decided
24 September 2007
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 292 · 2007 INSC 971

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. The dispute between the parties relates to plot No. 66, admeasuring 45 ft. x 80 ft. total area 3600 sq.ft situated at Jawahar Nagar Extension A Colony, Mauja Bhadeni Pargana Dehat, City Varanasi. As a dispute arose between petitioner and a cooperative society, the same was referred to arbitration. In the year 1981 an award was passed in favour of the petitioner. The arbitrator directed allotment of plot No. 6 in his favour. However, treating the said plot to be 66 (instead of plot No. 6) a sale B deed was executed by the cooperative society in favour petitioner for plot No. 66. Another dispute arose between the respondent and the cooperative society in relation to award of a plot in her favour. In the award made in favour of the respondent, it was directed that any of the 3 plots namely, plot Nos. 66, 91 or 15 may be allotted in her favour. As C the plot Nos. 91 and 15 were not available having been allotted to other members of the cooperative society, the respondent filed an execution application for allotment of the said plot No. 66 and execution of sale deed in her favour. In relation thereto, an objection filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. The revision petition filed thereagainst has also D been dismissed.

pp. 292–293, margin G

The sole question which arose for consideration before the executing authority was as to whether in view of the fact that a deed of sale has been executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot No. 66, the execution petition filed at the instance of the respondent was · E maintainable.

p. 293

Petitioner sought to rely upon the docrtine of lis pendens to contend that the said execution application was not maintainable. Before us copies of the original awards have been produced for the perusal. It appears F that plot No. 6 was only directed to be allotted in favour of the petitioner. If in execution of the said award a sale deed in respect of plot No. 66 has been executed, the same was evidently done by mistake and, thus, the petitioner cannot take any advantage thereof The remedy of the petitioner would, therefore, be to initiate an appropriate proceeding for G giving effect to the award passed by the Arbitrator in his favour. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

p. 293

No costs. RP. Appeal dismissed. H

p. 293