JUDGMENT :

(Goutam Bhaduri, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 30-1-2017 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil suit No.5-A/2011 whereby the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff company entered into an agreement with Ghanshyam Kishor Das (since deceased), who acted on behalf of his mother Vijay Lakshmi Devi (defendant No.2) and sister Mahalaxmi Devi (defendant No.3) for sale of land admeasuing 2.45 acres (1,06,740 sq.ft.) which is a lease hold plot bearing No.1/2 situated at Western Civil Station 32, Chhui Khadan Bada, Raipur. The agreement was executed on 8-3-2005. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property at the rate of Rs.320/- per sq.ft. and a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs was paid towards advance money by cheque and rest was agreed to be paid in 07 installments. Plaint averments show that the remaining amount was to be paid on information being given by the defendant about renewal of lease. It was further pleaded that the suit property was initially held on lease for 30 years by the father of Ghanshyam Kishor Das namely; Rituparna Kishoredas, which was being renewed from time to time. The plaintiff pleaded that after the death of Rituparna Kishoredas the defendants being the legal heirs were in possession of the suit property and despite having specific terms in the agreement that after renewal of the lease it would be informed to the purchaser, nothing was informed. The plaintiff, on enquiry, came to know that lease was renewed and served letter & notice to the defendants to execute the sale deed, but they did not do it, instead, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to sell the land to some one else. According to the plaintiff, renewal of the lease was already done on 26-12-2005, but despite that the defendants did not execute the sale deed, as such the civil suit was filed on 25-2-2008 for specific performance and permanent injunction.

3. (i) In reply to the plaint allegations, defendant No.1 Ghanshyam Kishor Das (since deceased) disowned the agreement and stated that he was in need of money to perform marriage of children as such took the amount of Rs.10.00 lacs and signed the document. At the time of signature of such document, he was not mentally fit. It was further stated that over the said land a building of 5000 sq.ft. in a dilapidated condition situates, but the same was not properly shown in the agreement.

(ii) The defendant further stated that when the agreement was executed by the defendant No.1 at that time no lease was existing and renewal of the lease was pending with the Nazul Department. The defendant also stated that the agreement to sell was not intended to be acted upon and the execution of agreement without the lease in its existence would show that the agreement could not be specifically enforced. It was further stated that only the defendant No.1 Ghanshyam Kishor Das executed the agreement whereas the defendants No.2 & 3 i.e. mother & sister of the defendant No.1 had only given power of attorney to look after and manage the said property, therefore, the agreement itself was not enforceable.

(iii) Service of notice was also denied and it was stated that plaintiff was not in a good financial position to pay the balance amount. It was further stated that the suit property being the ancestral one, as such the right of defendants No.2 & 3 was also vested in it. It was also stated that the defendant No.1 was not entitled to execute any agreement to sell the entire property and the agreement is void. Defendant No.2 Vijay Lakshmi Devi (since deceased) also disowned the agreement and stated that she has not signed the agreement and if some one has signed without her authorisation it would be invalid, as it does not have her consent and knowledge.