The court must determine the admissibility of documents based on the stamping requirements before relying on them in judgments, failing which can constitute a material irregularity.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2019 passed by learned III Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.116A/2015 thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for specific performance of contract. (For the sake of convenience, parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the learned trial Court).

2. Plaintiff Vinod Agrawal filed a suit for specific performance of contract with the averments that defendant No.1 Chhedan Prasad Sharma being in need of money contacted him and discussed for selling his land bearing Khasra No. 820, area 1.150 hectare, Village- Ghughwa, P.H.No.12. R.N.M. Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg for a sum of Rs.8.50 lakhs per acre. The plaintiff agreed to the said proposal and paid Rs.2.50 lakhs as advance to him on 31.12.2012 and accordingly an agreement was executed on the same day in presence of two witnesses. As per the said agreement, defendant No.1 was to provide all the original necessary revenue documents pertaining to the said suit land to the plaintiff for perusal and supply a copy thereof to him and also get the demarcation of the suit land done. However, defendant No.1 failed to do so whereas the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contractual obligation. Hence on 30.3.2013 the plaintiff through his advocate sent a registered legal notice to him, in reply to which he stated that time was not essence of the agreement dated 31.12.2012. The plaintiff on 20.3.2013, 30.4.2014 and 20.11.2014 requested many times for complying with the conditions of the agreement and on 3.3.2013 he also got a public notice published in daily newspaper of Raipur city i.e. Navbharat and Dainik Bhaskar regarding aforesaid agreement between the parties in respect of the suit land. From the above, it is clear that defendant No.1 was having no intention at all for complying with the conditions of the agreement whereas the plaintiff has ever been ready and willing to perform his part of contractual obligations and also has the requisite fund with him for this. The plaintiff sent two registered legal notices to him i.e. on 30.3.2013 and 22.9.2015 and despite receipt of it, defendant No.1 did not comply with the conditions of the agreement. He stated that he has paid the requisite ad valoram court fee and therefore, looking to the averments made above, he prayed for passing a decree in his favour thereby directing defendant No.1 to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff after obtaining the remaining amount of the sale consideration in terms of the agreement.

3. Defendant No.1 in his written statement though admitted the agreement dated 31.12.2012 and receipt of advance amount from the plaintiff but averred that the plaintiff in his plaint has not specifically described the agricultural land held by his family and himself which could show that the suit land is not affected by Agriculture Ceiling Limitation Act. Further, he averred that within three months of execution of the agreement, he had given to the plaintiff the requisite documents i.e. Khasra, Map, B-1, Rin Pustika of the suit land, PAN Card, Photograph and Identity Card which is mentioned in the plaintiff’s reply dated 25.4.2013 to his notice as also in letter dated 3.4.2013 of defendant No.1. The plaintiff only after examination of the revenue records of the suit land agreed to purchase the same from him and he had also orally informed the plaint