.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2019 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G) in Civil Suit No.1236102-A/2012 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction has been rejected. Hence this appeal.

2. (a) The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that the land bearing Kh. No.289/2 admeasuring 3.52 hectares situated at village Karhidih, P.H. No. 17/8, Tahsil and District Durg was jointly owned by defendants 1 to 3. According to plaint averments, since 1980-81 the family of the plaintiffs and defendants were jointly doing the land business, however, the purchase of lands was made in separate names and subsequently as the lands were being sold, the sale consideration was being divided equally. The plaintiff further stated that in the year 1999, the lands which were jointly purchased were agreed to be divided which was accepted by the defendants and accordingly, some of the lands belonging to the plaintiffs situated at village Sankra, Distt. Rajnandgaon were sold in favour of the defendants in 2003-04 by registered sale deed. Like wise, the landed property of village Jhenjhri were adjacent to the land of Karhidih with the same boarder which was purchased by the plaintiffs and defendants and therefore, in respect of the property of Jhenjhri and Karidih, it was agreed that the defendants would sell it for Rs.22,58,500/- and an oral agreement was arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to such agreement, on 11.01.2008 a total of 10 stamp papers worth Rs.3,74,300/- was purchased, out of which 5 stamp papers of Rs.1,84,600/- were used for execution of registered sale deed on 28.01.2008 and 30.01.2008 in respect of property of village Jhenjhri thereby the sale was done to the plaintiffs in part.

(b) The plaintiffs further stated that in respect of village Karhidih, though the property was agreed to be purchased but the defendant stated that because of certain income tax problem, the sale-deed could not be executed, as such, in respect of village Karidih, the property was agreed to be sold for Rs.10,78,000/- and out of that, Rs.10 lakhs was already received by the defendant and possession of the land was given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further state that in the month of January, 2011 the revenue documents were also handed over.

(c) Subsequently, it is stated that on 25.01.2011 the plaintiffs came to know that defendant no.1 Sunil Kumar Arora applied for a duplicate Rin Pustika to be issued in respect of suit land of Khasra No.289/2 of village Karhidih on the pretext that the original Rin Pustika has been lost so that the sale could be made to some-one-else. The plaintiff states that a sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs was already paid and only Rs.78,000/- remains to be paid and claimed that the defendants should not transfer the said land to any third party inasmuch as for village Jhenjhri and Karhidih, the sale consideration of Rs.21,80,500/- has been received by the defendants and only certain small part is to be paid. Therefore, on these averments, the suit for specific performance was sought for.

3. (a) The defendants denied all the adverse allegations as also the offer and acceptance as alleged by the plaintiffs in respect of distribution and sale of property inter-se was categorically denied. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have fabricated the so-called arrangements without acceptance of offer and the plaintiffs would themselves be held to be liable for the acceptance. The defendants further asserted that plaintiff no.1 used to look after the properties of defendants and he agreed to purchase the same and since they were residing at a far place i.e., Bhopal, they were not able to frequently come to Durg, as such, on obtaining nominal amount, the property of village Jhenjhri was sold to the plaintiffs and the land of Karhidih was neither offered for sale nor any agreement was arriv