The court upheld the discretion to deny specific performance when serious doubts exist regarding the execution or genuineness of an agreement and recognized the rights of bona fide purchasers.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed this First appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 16-2-2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 75-A/2012 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 75-A/2012 before the trial Court.

3. Brief Facts reflected from the record are that:

(a) The plaintiff filed suit before the trial Court for specific performance of contract mainly contending that the defendant No.1 Punai Bai who is having land bearing Khasra No. 296 and 365 admeasuring 1.02 acres and 0.78 acres total admeasuring 1.80 acres of land situated in village Khorin Bhata, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) has executed an agreement on 17-3-2003 for sale of suit property at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre which comes to total sale consideration at Rs. 4,05,000/-. The said agreement was executed in presence of two witnesses and defendant No.1 has also received Rs. 2,46,000/- through cheque. It is also the case that though at the time of execution of the agreement, advance money was given in cash, but on the request of the defendant No. 1 the amount was given through cheque. It was also agreed between the parties that whenever the plaintiff will pay the remaining amount, sale deed will be executed.

(b) It is also case of the plaintiff that after ten months of execution of agreement, the plaintiff has requested the defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, but she did not reply and avoided execution of the sale deed which has necessitated the plaintiff to send legal notice to defendant No. 1 through his counsel on 6-10-2004 which was refused by her.

(c) It is also case of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and due to escalation of value of the suit property, defendant No.1 has not deliberately executed the agreement. The During pendency of the suit, the suit property was sold to defendants No. 3 and 4 on 13-2-2012, therefore, the amendment was sought wherein it has been prayed for declaring the sale deed dated 13-2-2012 to be null and void.

4. The defendant No.1 has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that it is empathetically denied that she has received the amount of Rs. 2,46,000/- in presence of two witnesses. It is also denied that at the time of execution of agreement, defendant No. 1 had agreed that the amount will be given in cash and on her request, the said amount was given by cheque, but in fact no agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is also case of the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 sold the land bearing Khasra No. 294 area 1.69 acres and 0.83 total area 2.52 acres to plaintiff's wife Chandrabhaga on 25-3-2003 for sale consideration of Rs.3,51,000/- out of which after deducing the amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, he has given the amount of Rs.2,46,000/- and the plaintiff has taken misleading stand that Rs.2,46,000/- is sale consideration of the suit property and filed the suit only to harass the defendant No.1 and in-fact, no agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the said agreement is forged and fabricated. It has also been contended that the defendant has sold the property to defendants No.3 and 4 which is legal and justified and same is not liable to be interfered by the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of t