The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid contract for specific performance and emphasized burden of proof in such claims.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed by learned 4^th Additional District Judge, Durg, (CG) in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2013, by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and allowed the counter claim filed by defendants by declaring the defendant No. 3 and 4 owner of the house bearing khasra No. 1083/8 area 0.005 hectare situated at village Pachri Para near Krishna Temple Durg, further directing the plaintiff to hand over the vacant possession of the suit house within two months from the date of judgment and if the vacant possession is not handed over to the defendant No. 3 and 4 then the plaintiff is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 100/- per day to the defendants No. 3 and 4.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2013 before the trial court.

3. Brief facts as mentioned in the plaint are that plaintiff filed a suit on 05.01.2004 before the learned trial Court for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction mainly contending that;

(A) The plaintiff has taken the house of defendant No.1 and 2 on rent situated at Pachri Para, near Krishna Temple, Durg (Hereinafter referred to as suit property). The plaintiff along with her children were residing there. It is also case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 and 2 proposed to sell the suit house to the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- as such the plaintiff paid defendant No. 1 and 2 Rs. 18,200/- on 07.07.2003 as advance. It is also agreed by the defendant No.1 and 2 that after 2003 they will execute sale deed of the suit house after paying remaining sale consideration.

(B) It is also case of the plaintiff that after receiving advance money on 07.07.2003 the defendant No. 1 and 2 had given oral instruction to the plaintiff that they have already received monthly rent from the plaintiff up to June 2003 and since the agreement to sell has already been executed between them, therefore, she is not required to pay any rent. Accordingly, the plaintiff stopped paying rent to the defendant No.2. It is also case of the plaintiff, that since the defendant No. 1 and 2 are not executing the sale deed, therefore, the plaintiff sent a notice on 28.11.2003 asking them to execute the sale deed after obtaining the remaining sale consideration from the plaintiff. She has also sent the notice to defendant No.3 to restrain her from executing the sale deed as an agreement has already been arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. The defendant No. 1,2 and 3 have submitted the reply to the notice that in the suit property the plaintiff is not residing but her daughter along with their children are living illegally and contending that they are not paying the rent. It is further contended that the plaintiff for purchase of house has directed his son to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank on 23.12.2003 and in the State Bank Durg Rs. 40,000/- on 31.12.2003, as such she has adequate fund to execute sale deed to substantiate that she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract.

(C) It has also been contended that despite objection by the plaintiff the defendant No. 1 and 2 executed the sale deed on 15.12.2003 with defendant no. 3 and 4, as such the sale deed be declared as null and void and the defendant be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

4. Defendant No. 1 has filed her written statement as well as counter claim mainly contending;-

(A) That the plainti