Back
2018 Supreme(Chh) 585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sharad Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Gajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri. Radhey Shyam Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Jain S/o Hazari Mal Jain, Occupation Business & Ors. – Respondents
FA No.7 of 2012
Decided On : 27-07-2018
For the Appellant :Shri. Kshitiz Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri. Vikram Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(C) and 20(2) - Agreement – Property - Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance on pleadings that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell his property in dispute for a consideration and agreement to that effect was executed by him in presence of two independent witnesses - It was further pleaded that an advance was paid by plaintiff - According to agreement, defendant was required to execute sale deed within a period of 6 months by receiving balance amount of consideration and after getting tenant-bank evicted from house - It was further pleaded that under the agreement, parties agreed that if for some reason, defendant fails to execute sale deed, period for execution of sale deed could be extended for a further period of six months - Plaintiff again and again demanded execution of sale deed, but when defendant did not execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff, finally plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of contract, after giving due notice demanding execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, stating that he is prepared to pay balance amount at time of registration - Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract – Held, in the present case, defendant itself has led evidence of DW-2, who has stated that as per prevalent rates, valuation of the house in dispute - Said valuation has been arrived at by Deputy Registrar, taking into consideration location of the plot, rate prescribed by Central Evaluation Board, further taking into consideration that accommodation is non-residential as also depreciation - Learned counsel for appellant had raised submission that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated pleadings and evidence with regard to each and every issue framed by it but has recorded perfunctory reasons to jump to conclusion in favour of plaintiff, which was also appreciated by this Court, in view of what has been stated by Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh vs. H. K. Banerjee and others, 1969(1) SCC 709 – Court have, however, considered entire pleading and evidence on record to arrive at court own finding, independent of findings recorded by the trial Court as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the suit - In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 03-12-2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Balod in Civil Suit No.13-A/2011, by which, plaintiff's suit has been decreed. The appellant is the defendant, against whom, a decree of specific performance of contract has been passed.
2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance on the pleadings that the defendant No.1-Gajedndra Prasad Sharma entered into an agreement to sell his property in dispute for a consideration of Rs.8,21,000/- on 18-06-2007 and agreement to that effect was executed by him in the presence of two independent witnesses. It was further pleaded that an advance of Rs.61,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. According to the agreement, the defendant was required to execute the sale deed within a period of 6 months by receiving the balance amount of consideration and after getting the tenant-bank evicted from the house. It was further pleaded that under the agreement, the parties agreed that if for some reason, the defendant fails to execute the sale deed, the period for execution of sale deed could be extended for a further period of six months. The plaintiff further pleaded that later on, the plaintiff paid various installments of Rs.35,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/-, in all Rs.55,000/- on various dates from 25-07-2007 up to 30-11- 2007, thus paid Rs.1,16,000/-, out of Rs.8,21,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance amount and get the sale deed executed. However, despite request made, the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff then requested the defendant to execute another agreement in continuation of earlier agreement and thereafter, another agreement was also executed on 02-05-2008 in presence of two witnesses and in that agreement, payment of Rs.1,16,000/- was also admitted. It was agreed that if defendant fails to get the tenant evicted within the stipulated period, he shall proceed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter amount of rent would be received by the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter, proceeded towards execution of sale deed and got notice published in the newspaper on 25-07- 2018 inviting objection, in response to which, the defendant disowned the agreement and sent notice dated 04-08-2008 to the plaintiff, denying execution of agreement of sale of the property and instead came out with a story of loan transaction saying that whatever amount he received was towards loan transaction and he never executed any agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff again and again demanded execution of sale deed, but when the defendant did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, finally the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of contract, after giving due notice on 14-10-2008, demanding execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, stating that he is prepared to pay the balance amount at the time of registration.
3. On the other hand, the defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and came out with a story that the defendant never executed any agreement to sell his property in favour of the plaintiff nor he received any amount towards sale of his property. The defendant, though, admitted having received the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff, total amount of Rs.1,46,000/-, case of the defendant was that the plaintiff taking undue advantage of disability and that he is a blind person, obtained signatures on blank papers, cheating the defendant that he is only getting the loan documents prepared. Market value of the property in dispute in the year 2007 was Rs.25 Lakhs or even more, therefore, it is highly improbable that the plaintiff would be agreeing to sell his property for song's price.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial Court framed as many as
