JUDGMENT : 1. The present special appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge only to the extent an application preferred by respondent No.11-Shiv Prakash Soni with a prayer for direction to get the sale deed registered in his favour and for permission to raise construction has been allowed. Before proceeding further the brief facts of the case are summarised as under : 2. One Deva Ram preferred a suit for partition with a specific averment that he, Loon Singh, Pratap Ram and Triloka Ram have 1/4th share each in the disputed property and are in joint possession of the said land. He, in the suit prayed for partition of the said land by metes and bounds. In the said suit, an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was preferred by him for interim injunction in which at the first instance, an interim order was granted on 27.05.2004 and ultimately the same was finally decided on 10.02.2006 whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the disputed property. 3. One suit for specific performance of the contract was filed by one Shiv Prakash Soni (respondent No.11 in the present appeal) with an averment that Triloka Ram, one of the coparcener had entered into an 'agreement to sell' in his favour for 9 bighas of land out of his share. When the sale deed was not got registered by Triloka Ram, he preferred a suit for specific performance of the contract. During pendency of the said suit, Triloka Ram expired and the legal representatives of Triloka Ram ultimately entered into a compromise with the applicant-Shiv Prakash Soni. Vide the compromise, the legal representatives of Triloka Ram consented to get the sale deed for 5 bighas and 10 biswa of land registered in favour of the applicant. In terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015. 4. Vide the compromise, the legal representatives of Triloka Ram consented to get the sale deed for 5 bighas and 10 biswa of land registered in favour of the applicant. In terms of the compromise entered into between the parties, the suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015. 4. When, in spite of the suit being decreed in his favour, the sale deed was not registered by the legal representatives of Triloka Ram, an application before the writ Court in the present proceedings was preferred by Shiv Prakash Soni with a submission that because of the interim order operating in the present writ petition, the sale deed is denied to be got registered in his favour and therefore, appropriate orders be passed for registration of the sale deed in his favour and for permission to raise construction on the said land. 5. When the matter was listed for orders on the said application, with the consent of the parties, learned Single Judge proceeded on to dispose of the writ petition itself with a direction to the Assistant Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur to decide the suit within a period of one year. However, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge also proceeded on to allow the application preferred by respondent No.11 (Shiv Prakash Soni) and directed for sale deed to be got registered in his name and also permitted him to raise the construction subject to outcome of the ultimate decision of the pending suit for partition. Against the said part of the order, the present special appeal has been preferred. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the LRs of appellant Deva Ram submitted that the said order in favour of respondent No.11 could not have been passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel submitted that unless and until the suit for partition is decided by the competent court, the specific shares of the coparceners are not defined and therefore, any sale deed in favour of respondent No.11 could not be registered. Further, when the share of the coparcener himself is not defined, the construction on an unidentified share of land could not have been permitted. Further, when the share of the coparcener himself is not defined, the construction on an unidentified share of land could not have been permitted. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors.; AIR 1966 SCC 470 and submitted that the only right available to the purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest is to sue for partition of the property and he is not entitled to possession of what he has purchased. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.11-applicant Shiv Prakash Soni submitted that after the suit for specific performance of contract having been decreed in his favour on the basis of a compromise entered into between one of the co-sharers i.e. the seller, the registration of the sale deed in his favour cannot be denied. He further submitted that against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015 passed in his favour, the present appellant-Deva Ram preferred a leave to appeal before this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.02.2021. Moreover, at the first instance, Deva Ram preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment as a party in the suit, which was rejected on 23.08.2006. The writ petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 22.11.2006 and the special appeal against the same was also dismissed on 19.01.2007. Therefore, now after rejection of the application of Deva Ram for impleadment as well as rejection of leave to appeal, it is not open now for LRs of plaintiff-Deva Ram to contend that the sale deed should not be permitted to be executed in his favour. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not in dispute that Triloka Ram is entitled for 1/4th of share in the property and it measures to almost 16 bighas of land. The sale deed consented to be executed in favour of the applicant is only for 5 bighas and 10 biswa which is clearly less than the share of the seller Triloka Ram, therefore, the registration of sale deed in his favour would even otherwise not affect the right of plaintiff-Deva Ram or any other coparcener in any manner. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the order impugned is perfectly in terms of law and deserves to be upheld. 8. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the order impugned is perfectly in terms of law and deserves to be upheld. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the record shows that the 'agreement to sell' in favour of the applicant-Shiv Prakash Soni was entered by Triloka Ram on 12.01.2004 i.e. prior to filing of the suit for partition (filed on 26.05.2004) as well as the interim order dated 27.05.2004 being passed by the Revenue Court. A bare perusal of the cause title of the suit for partition preferred by Deva Ram shows that the applicant-Shiv Prakash Soni was also impleaded as a party to the suit as defendant No.6 and a specific averment regarding the 'agreement to sell' entered by Triloka Ram in his favour has been made in the plaint. Meaning thereby, the 'agreement to sell' of which specific performance was prayed for, had been entered into prior to filing of suit for partition and even prior to any interim order having come into existence. Admittedly, it has been held by the civil court that Deva Ram was not a necessary party in the suit for specific performance and therefore, his application for impleadment was rejected not only by the learned single Judge but also by the Division Bench of this Court. Even the leave to appeal preferred by Deva Ram against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015 has also been dismissed. In the opinion of this Court, the execution of the decree passed by the competent civil court cannot now be held to be unexecutable in garb of the fact that the suit for partition is pending between the coparceners. Moreover so, when the purchaser i.e. the present applicant-Shiv Prakash Soni is also a party to the said suit. It is clear and rather admitted on record that Triloka Ram is entitled to 1/4th share in the property which measures to almost 16 bighas of land and vide the decree, only 5 bighas and 10 biswa of land has been directed to be got registered in favour of the applicant therefore, clearly the registration of the said document would not affect the right or share of any of the other coparceners. 10. 10. So far as the identification of the share is concerned, the registration of the sale deed qua a specified area of land would not necessarily require the particular identified portion. Therefore, this Court is of the specific opinion that the direction to get the registration of sale deed in favour of the applicant-Shiv Prakash Soni is perfectly valid and does not require any interference. So far as the permission to raise construction is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the same could not have been granted in absence of the identified shares of all the coparceners and cannot be granted until partition is directed by metes and bounds. 11. So far as the judgment in the case of M.V.S. Manikayala Rao's (supra) is concerned there is no dispute on the ratio as laid down in the said judgment that only right available to a purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which on partition might be found to fall to the share of the coparcener whose share he had purchased. 12. Admittedly, in the present matter, the applicant-Shiv Prakash Soni is a party to the suit for partition and therefore, would be entitled to pray for possession of his identified share of land corresponding to the seller coparcener. But as opined above, he cannot be denied of registration of the sale deed in his favour because it is only on the strength of that document that he would be entitled to pray for the same. 13. In view of above analysis, the present special appeal is partly allowed. The order impugned to the extent it permits the applicant -respondent No.11 to raise construction is set aside. However, the order directing the respondent No.11 to get the sale deed registered in his favour is upheld. 14. All pending applications also stand disposed of.