Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- This civil revision petition has been preferred by a third party objector in execution of decree dated 27.5.2006 claiming that the judgment debtor in the decree was having no right, title or interest in the land and thus, the decree against him is unexecutable.

2. It is claimed that the plot which forms subject matter of the decree under execution was owned by Babu Ram father of the revisionist petitioner who while making testamentary succession by way of Will dated 7.8.1989 had ignored his two sons out of 7 and judgment-debtor was one of the two ignored sons of the owner. It is averred that the judgment-debtor had been deprived of any share in the property in dispute. It is, thus, claimed that any action taken by the judgment-debtor including execution of agreement to sell dated 27.2.2004 is of no legal significance.

3. Challenging the impugned order, whereby objection petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, the objector (now revisionist petitioner) had claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the property in dispute by way of a family settlement, further alleging that the judgment debtor was having no concern with the same. After receiving evidence in the execution petition, the executing court finding it to be of no merit had dismissed the objection petition.

4. Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the impugned order as also the documents placed by the parties on the paper book.

5. Decree under execution is of 27.5.2006. Genesis of litigation in the said decree was an agreement to sell of 27.2.2004 executed by JD Ranjit Singh (real brother of the objector) in favour of decree holder Sajjan Singh. The suit was for specific performance of this agreement to sell where defendant Ranjit Singh had lost the litigation.

6. Now the petitioner brother has come forward to salvage the sinking ship of the judgment-debtor claiming that since the judgment-debtor had no right, title or interest in the property in litigation, neither agreement to sell dated 27.2.2004 executed by him nor the decree passed in favour of the decree holder, is of any legal significance.

7. When the petitioner-objector was called upon by the executing court to sustain his pleadings of being owner of the property which was subject matter of execution of the decree, he could not produce any evidence worth acceptance and thus, his objection petition was found to be hollow and being of no merit, was dismissed.

8. If entire case of the petitioner is taken for evaluation where he claims himself to be one of the seven sons of Babu Ram and further that the property was owned by Babu Ram his father, who had bequeathed the same in favour of his five sons while debarring two others out of seven including the judgment-debtor and thereafter, in a family partition, he had become absolute owner of the same, it runs as a fiction since there is no evidence worth the name to support this plea. During the course of proceedings before the executing court where objection petition of the petitioner was treated almost as a separate suit and the parties were allowed to produce their entire evidence in support of their rival claims, the petitioners had not been able to produce any evidence firstly to show that his father was the owner of the property and then, there is no evidence that it was subject matter of testamentary succession by way of Will. He also could not produce any evidence regarding settlement of the property in dispute in his favour sequel to some family partition.

9. It is worth notice that even at the time of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.2.2004 calling upon the objector (now petitioner) to produce copy of family partition or any document showing title of the property resting with him, the objector had remained completely blank. Rather, the objector took a somersault when he came forward with a plea that the family partition was oral one; details of t