The court upheld that an agreement to sell not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence, and emphasized the necessity of proving continuous readiness and willingness for granting specific performance.

Order :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2020 passed by the learned 6^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 164-A/2016, titled Swadhin Nag Chaudhary v. Ajay Francis, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, as pleaded by the appellant in the appeal, are that the appellant herein instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent, seeking enforcement of an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the said suit primarily on the ground that the agreement to sell, marked as Ex.P/10, was not duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, was held to be inadmissible in evidence. On this basis, the learned Trial Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to a decree for specific performance. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit praying for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.11.2013 executed by the respondent/defendant in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1275/7, P.H.N. No. 22, admeasuring 0.04 acres, and Sheet No. 18/12, Plot No. 67, admeasuring 1782 sq. ft., situated at Torwa, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). It was specifically pleaded that, in pursuance of the said transaction, the appellant had earlier paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide cheque No. 013672 dated 10.04.2012 and a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- vide cheque No. 013674 dated 10.05.2012. It was also averred that an earlier agreement dated 11.04.2012 had been executed between the parties for sale of the same suit property. It was further pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was awaiting the respondent/defendant to obtain the necessary permission from the competent revenue authorities for execution of the sale deed. It was further stated that, after execution of the agreement dated 11.04.2012, the respondent, in breach of the said agreement, entered into another agreement with one Smt. Mausmi Vishwas for sale of the very same property. Upon coming to know about the subsequent agreement, the appellant caused publication of a public notice in a local newspaper, as a result of which the agreement entered into by the respondent with Smt. Mausmi Vishwas stood cancelled. It was further averred that, at the request and assurance of the respondent, the appellant did not initiate any legal proceedings for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.04.2012. Instead, the parties executed a fresh agreement to sell dated 26.11.2013, and the appellant again paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent vide cheque No. 42009773. The agreement dated 26.11.2013 specifically recorded that possession of the suit property had been handed over to the appellant by the respondent. As per Clause 4 of the agreement dated 26.11.2013 (Ex.P/10), the respondent/defendant was obliged to obtain the requisite permission from the Collector, Bilaspur, and, upon grant of such permission, to intimate the appellant so that the balance sale consideration could be paid and a registered sale deed could be executed in favour of the appellant. According to the averments made in the plaint, the respondent/defendant deliberately and mala fide described the diverted suit property as agricultural land and failed to properly pursue the application for permission before