An agreement of sale does not create any interest in or charge on the property and a purchaser from the vendor is entitled to full enjoyment of the property until a decree for specific performance is obtained.

( 1 ) NARAIN Dass and his mother Sm. Jassi Devihave moved an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act in the court of Shri Jagdish Chandra. Additional Distt. Judge, Delhi seeking reference to arbitration of the dispute, arising between them and Khushal Chand Chandana, respondent No. 1, under an agreement of sale dated 8. 9. 1979 pertaining to quarter No. A-32 Outram Lines, Delhi, as also plot No. 301, Dr. Mukherji Nagar, Delhi. It was stated that the price settled was Rs. 45. 500. 00 out of which Rs. 5,000. 00 were paid to Khushal Chand Chandana. The latter was to obtain permission for that sale from the L. and D. 0. New Delhi, and Municipal Corporation and within a month thereof to execute the sale-deed. The L. and D. 0. required Khushal Chand by its letter dated 5. 1. 1980 to pay the unearned increase of Rs. 3,125. 00 and thereafter the permission could be granted.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, in the meanwhile, because of rise in the prices of the properties, and with ulterior motive to avoid sale in their favour, it was next alleged in the petition, a sale-deed was actually executed by Khushal Chand in favour of Jiwan Dass Rawal, respondent No. 2, for more than Rs. 60. 000. 00. this was in spite of their apprising Jiwan Dass Rawal that Khushal Chand had already agreed to sell the property to them. It was next stated that the mutation of the property was still to be effected by the L. and D. 0. in favour of Jiwan Dass Rawal, and the possession of the plot was yet to be delivered by the Municipal Corporation.

( 3 ) IMPLEADING Khushal Chand, Jiwan Dass Rawal, I. and D. 0. and Municipal Corporation as respondents, the application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act was moved for reference of disputes under the agreement of sale dated 8. 9. 1979 to arbitration. This agreement was said to contain an arbitration clause for decision of those disputes.

( 4 ) KHUSHAL Chand in his written statement denied the existence of any agreement of sale between him and the petitioners, or that there was any arbitration agreement. It was next stated that there was no valid and legal agreement between the parties as Smt. Jassi Devi, petitioner, was neither agreeable nor available at the time when the agreement was drafted. The cheque of Rs. 5. 000. 00 was, therefore, returned by Khushal Chand to Narain Dass, petitioner, which he duly accepted. Without prejudice to these objections, it was stated that respondent No. 2 to 4 were not parties to any transactions, and, therefore, the petition against them was not maintainable. The suit was also stated to be barred by sections 79 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Code , and u/s 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, as no notices were served on the L. and D. 0. and the Municipal Corporation. It was admitted that he had now sold the property to Jiwan Dass Rawal, though the consideration money was stated to be Rs. 20,000. 00 only.

( 5 ) JIWAN Dass in his written statement pleaded that the petition had become infructuous as he had already purchased the property for consideration and without notice of any alleged agreement between the petitioners and respondent No. 1, Khushal Chand and a registered sale deed stood duly executed. The petition was next pleaded to be bad for misjoinder of parties as this respondent was not a party to any arbitration agreement. The petitioners were further stated to have not come with clean hands, and they were pleaded to be estopped. It was denied that the sale in his favour was after notice of agreement of sale in petitioners favour.

( 6 ) THE L. and D. 0. in his written statement that Khushal Chand had applied for permission for second sale of the property on 10. 10. 1979 in favour of the petitioners, and it was granted onl4. 11. 79. Thereafter afresh permission to sell the property to Jiwan Dass Rawal was applied for by Khushal Chand on 21. 1. 1980, and it was granted on 29. 2. 1980. On 16. 4. 1980, an intimation was received that the sale had been effected in favour of Jiwan D