The court emphasized the necessity for continuous proof of a party's readiness and willingness to perform contract obligations and that unregistered agreements impacting possession must be duly stamped to be admissible in court.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The appellants are gravely aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 08- A/2014, titled Mohammad Akmal Rizvi versus Mamta Yadav and Others, whereby the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit against the appellants. The impugned Judgment and Decree are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, based on erroneous appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, and suffer from serious errors of law as well as jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse, unsustainable, and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. Being dissatisfied and prejudiced by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the appellant is constrained to prefer the present appeal on the grounds set forth hereinbelow, seeking interference by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

2. Facts of the case :- The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 26.07.2010 against the Appellants/Defendants No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/Defendant No.3 before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, asserting that the suit property bearing Khasra No. 7/145, admeasuring 0.045 hectare (4914 sq. ft.), along with a double-storied house constructed over 1350 sq. ft., situated at Vivekanand Nagar, Ward No.4, Dhamtari, originally belonged to late Rakesh Kumar Yadav whose legal heirs are the present defendants; it was pleaded that an agreement to sell was executed by the said Rakesh Kumar Yadav on 26.07.2010, pursuant to which a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was allegedly paid as advance, possession of 3564 sq. ft. of open land was stated to have been delivered to the plaintiff, and the defendants had purportedly consented by signing on the reverse of the agreement deed along with annexing their photographs, followed by a further alleged payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.08.2010 through cheque, which was acknowledged by Defendant No.3, thereby asserting receipt of a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-; it was further pleaded that the plaintiff had obtained a bank loan of Rs.37,00,000/- for registration of the sale deed, but despite readiness and willingness, the defendants failed to execute the same, leading also to initiation of criminal proceedings and issuance of legal notice, and eventually filing of the suit on 20.03.2014, after the death of Rakesh Kumar Yadav on 20.04.2013; the defendants, however, filed a detailed written statement denying all plaint averments, contending inter alia that the suit property was worth more than Rs.1 crore, that late Rakesh Kumar Yadav had been suffering from serious mental illness since 2007 and was not of sound disposing mind, that he never intended to sell the property, and that the alleged agreement and endorsements were forged and fabricated, obtained by the plaintiff and his associate under coercion, threat, and undue influence, including threats of suicide, without any free consent or payment of consid