After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. As per the revenue record, the respondents are in possession of the suit land. No doubt agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioner by Phool Singh general attorney of the respondents herein on 12.9.1991 and as per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and got registered within six months after making payment of the remaining amount of Rs.70,000/- as out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,38,000/- a sum of Rs.68,000/- had been paid as earnest money, but the petitioner failed to perform his part of the agreement. The petitioner claimed that possession of the suit land was delivered to him on 26.7.1994 in terms of the subsequent writing of even date when the entire sale consideration had been paid to the vendors. However, neither the payment of the amount has been mentioned in the writing dated 26.7.1994 nor there is any stipulation regarding handing over of possession of the suit land to the petitioner. The revenue record, on the contrary, shows possession of the respondents herein over the suit land. In fact, the respondents herein had served a legal notice dated 26.11.1993 upon the petitioner thereby calling upon him to make payment of the remaining sale consideration and to get the sale deed executed in his favour within fifteen days failing which his earnest money would be forfeited. Even then the
