The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's failure to obtain necessary documents and contradictory actions led to the dismissal of the specific performance claim. Additionally, the principle of unjust enrichment was applied, and the appellant was ordered to pay interest on the amount received.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Heard.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge to the Court of Second Additional Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.51-A/2014 dated 02.01.2017.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of specific performance.

4. The brief facts of the case are that:-

(A) The appellant/defendant had entered into an agreement of sale of his lands bearing Khasra No.30/2, admeasuring 0.114 hectare and Khasra No.30/8 admeasuring 0.016 hectare total area admeasuring 0.130 hectare i.e. 32 decimal i.e. 13940 sq. feet on 02.12.2011. By way of earnest amount of Rs.3,51,000/- and on 31.12.2011 two cheques of Rs.75000/- each was paid to the seller. The total consideration being part payment was of Rs.5,01,000/-. According to the pleading of plaintiff, one of the conditions of the sale was that the sale deed can be registered in name of any other person in whose favour the seller wants. According to the agreement of sale the sale deed was required to be registered by 30th March, 2012 and it was the duty of the defendant/seller to get the necessary permission from the revenue officers including the permission of column No.14 which is required for registration of sale. According to the agreement before registration of the sale, the land was required to be measured and the remaining part of sale consideration was to be paid reciprocal to the area available after demarcation. The plaintiff/purchaser contended that he supplied all the necessary documents to the defendant/seller for execution of sale deed and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant/seller failed to do it. It is stated that the necessary permission to sale the land in favour of one Rashmi Mishra was given to the purchaser/plaintiff on 31.03.2012 at 6' O clock by the seller and on 31.03.2012 there was a bank holiday and 01.04.2012 was Sunday, as such the remaining sale consideration amount could not be paid. The plaintiff contended that the defendant refused to accept the amount by cheque. It was contended that on opening working date on 03.04.2012 the plaintiff/purchaser went with the payment and requested for registration of sale of the land but the defendant refused.

(B) It was further contended that the seller had earlier entered into an agreement for sale of the same land with one Basant Kumar Dewangan. The said Basant Kumar Dewangan made certain complaint to various authorities but despite such complaint having come to an end after the enquiry on some pretext or the other the seller avoided to execute the sale. Eventually a notice dated 30.04.2013 was sent by the purchaser through his advocate which was replied by the seller on 15.05.2013, wherein it was stated that the last date was on 30.03.2012 and time was the essence of contract as such refused to execute the sale deed. Eventually, the suit was filed.

5. As per the case of the defendant/appellant, the agreement dated 02.12.2011 is not in dispute. It was contended that pursuant to the agreement initially an amount of Rs.3,51,000/- thereafter Rs.1,50,000/- was received. The defendant contended that as per the demand of the plaintiff/purchaser the plaintiff had substituted the purchaser as one Smt. Rashmi Mishra to be the purchaser and the said information was given to the defendant/seller on 16.03.2012 and it was told by the plaintiff that the sale deed to be registered in name of Rashmi Mishra pursuant to the agreement of sale. It is further contended that consequent to such request on 17.03.2012 an application was filed by the defendant/seller before the office of Patwari, wherein the name of purchaser in place of plaintiff Vipin Kumar Jha, Smt. Rashmi Mishra name was shown and her signature were also obtained. It is further stated that one Basant Kumar Dewangan had objected in such proceeding before the office of Tehsildar and Patwari and thereafter after the said