The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subsequent Vendee from the same Vendor is bound by the terms of the sale deed executed in favor of another purchaser prior in point of time.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

The legal heirs of the plaintiff-appellants are in the Regular Second Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to a passage provided to the plaintiff as per the sale deed dated 10.05.1986. Late Sh. Ram Partap who was owner of the property while selling the land measuring 8 kanals to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 10.05.1986 had provided a passage from his own fields located towards east of land sold. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been using this passage since the time of his purchase. However, the defendants who are subsequent purchasers are trying to block the same. It is not in dispute that after the death of Ram Partap, the property was inherited by Chuhar Ram who had sold the land to Smt. Sushma and Gulab Rai who in turn sold the property to defendant No.1-Jatinder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 24.11.2003.

3. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file has found that since defendant No.1 has also purchased the property from same owner, therefore, defendant No.1 is bound to provide a passage which was provided in the sale deed. However, learned First Appellate Court has chosen to reverse the findings by assigning following reasons:-

1. In the revenue record, there is no passage.

2. The plaintiff has failed to show that he has been using the passage for the last 20 years and, therefore, plaintiff cannot claim easementary rights.

3. In the sale deed produced by the plaintiff, there is a reference to the passage, however, the aforesaid sale deed is not binding on defendant No.1 being a subsequent Vendee.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the question of law which needs determination is as under:-

(a) Whether a subsequent Vendee from the same Vendor is bound by the terms of the sale deed executed in favour of other purchaser prior in point of time?

4. It is not in dispute that Ram Partap, the original owner and the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 had sold the property to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 10.05.1986. It is specifically recorded in the sale deed that apart from selling the land measuring 8 kanals, the right of ingress and egress has been provided to the Vendee through the land of the Vendor situated on the eastern side which connects with a public passage. It is further not in dispute that defendant No.1 is also subsequent purchaser from the successor-in-interest of the same Vendor. It is well established that no one can transfer better title than what he himself has. In the present case, after executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Ram Partap was left with a right of passage. After the death of Ram Partap, Chuhar Ram inherited the same rights. Same rights were sold to Sushma and Gulab Rai who in turn sold the property to defendant No.1. Such being the undisputed position, defendant No.1 is bound by the terms of the sale deed which was executed by his predecessor-in-interest prior in point of time. Hence, question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Now let us deal with the reasons given by the First Appellate Court.

6. First reason given by the Appellate Court is that no passage is provided in the revenue record. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was a public passage. The plaintiff's case is simplicitor that while selling the land measuring 8 kanals, his Vendor had provided a passage to him from his own land. A owner is entitled to provide a passage to its Vendee from his own land. The plaintiff does not claim any ownership over the land which is under the passage. He only claims the right of user which was conceded by the owner at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Hence, the first reason assigned by the First Appellate Court was totally erroneous.

7. Second reason assigned by the First Appellate Court is that 20 years have not been comple