JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Both the appeals are being heard together, as the parties to the agreement, which led filing the suit for specific performance are same except the subject matter of property. The appellant/plaintiff filed two civil suits for specific performance of sale of immovable property.

2. FA No. 78 of 2020 arises out of judgment and decree dated 15-1-2020 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 77-A/2014 whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement was dismissed.

3. FA No. 80 of 2020 arises out of judgment and decree dated 15-1-2020 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015 whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement was dismissed.

The plaintiff is before this Court in both the appeals against such dismissal.

4. The brief resume of the facts necessary for our purpose are that:

(a) FA No. 78 of 2020 (Civil Suit No. 77-A/2014): As per plaint averments a house situated over the land bearing khasra No. 419/14 admeasuring 2200 sq. ft. plot No. B2 situated at Risali, PH No. 22, RI Circle Durg, agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 40.00 lacs. It is stated that the defendant received a cheque of Rs. 4.00 lacs and cash of Rs. 10.00 lacs on 10-7-2013 and subsequently, an amount of Rs. 26.00 lacs by way of cheque was received on 30-7-2013. On 10-7-2013 an agreement of sale was executed. Thereafter, possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit for specific performance was filed.

(b) FA No. 80 of 2020 (Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015): As per plaint averments a house situated over the land bearing khasra No. 307/09 admeasuring 2034.20 sq. ft. plot No. B34 situated at Junvani, PH No. 21, RI Circle Durg, agreed to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 35.00 lacs. For which payment of Rs. 15.00 lacs and Rs. 20.00 lacs was paid by way of cheque on 19-6-2013. After payment of entire sale consideration, possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that the agreement was executed on 20-6-2013 and simultaneously by such agreement the power to manage the property was conferred.

(c) The sale having not been executed as per the agreement, two separate civil suits were filed in respect of both the properties.

(d) Common defence of the respondent/defendant was that the agreement was outcome of fraud and it was specifically stated that the husband of the defendant, who breathed his last, had purchased two properties and because of the financial bottle necking it was rented out. After his death since the tenants were occupant of the premises the defendant wanted to get it vacated, as such came in contact with one K. Devasahayam, who, in promise to get the property vacated, got certain signatures of the defendant. She further stated that K. Devasahayam was known to her deceased husband as such she believed him and had signed certain documents. She alleged that the sale consideration was never paid to her, therefore, it being outcome of fraud, criminal complaints were filed, which were pending.

(e) On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed by the Court below. In civil suit No. 77-A/2014 plaintiff K.P. Singh examined himself as PW-1 and the attesting witness to the alleged agreement was examined. Defendant Smt. Gaurisha Mishra examined herself as DW-1 and one L.S. Kashyap as DW-2 whereas in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2015, only two witnesses were examined i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant. After conclusion of trial, both the civil suits were dismissed by the Court below. Thus, these appeals.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the agreements in the case which are marked as Ex.P/1 prove the contents of payment of sale consideration, which is corroborated by the entry of bank statements Ex.P/9 and P/4, respectively. He would further submit that the