C A V Judgment

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J

1) This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.36-A/2010 whereby the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of the respondent plaintiff.

2) The brief facts as per the plaint averments are that plaintiff Radheshyam Bansal filed a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction stating that he has entered into agreement for purchase of land bearing Kh.No.212/58 of 10,000 square feet. The plaintiff also prayed for a direction that the suit property should not be sold to any third party. The respondent/plaintiff further averred that appellant defendant Pradeep Sharma had purchased the suit land of Kh.No.212 total admeasuring 20,000 sqft., by registered sale deed dated 11.05.2005 from one Gurukul Shikshan Prasar Parishad. Thereafter, out of the purchased land, 10,000 sqft of land was agreed to be sold in favour of plaintiff @ Rs.511/- per sqft and on different dates, Rs.5,01,000/- was received as earnest money. It was further stated that since another suit was filed by one Lata Dubey against the appellant/defendant for the subject land which was pending, consequently the sale deed could not be registered and when defendant tried to sell out the land in favour of third party, a notice was served to the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But even then defendant did not adhere to the demand of such notice.

Consequently the suit was filed for specific performance of sale deed.

3) The appellant defendant filed the reply stating that he has not entered into any agreement of sale with Radheshyam Bansal for sale of 10,000 sqft and the agreement of sale dated 11.04.2007 does not bear the signature of the defendant and the document has been forged. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff has no right to say that the suit land in question was disputed one. It is also stated that the subject matter of the land in question was not made clear by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The defendant further stated that an oral deal was made to sell only 2000 sqft of land @ Rs.511/- per sqft and accordingly, an amount of Rs.4,51,000/- was received but since the plaintiff did not pay the remaining sum, as such, the sale deed was not executed. The defence of limitation was also raised that the suit is barred by time and compensation was also prayed.

4) The respondent has also filed a cross appeal which is also being adjudicated. The learned Court of Additional District Judge framed 7 issues. Issue no.1 is that whether the defendant has entered the agreement to sell the land of Kh.No.212/58 admeasuring 10,000 sqft for Rs.51,10,000/- @ Rs.511/- per sqft ? The Court gave a finding that it is proved. Issue no.2 is whether the defendant has received advance amount of Rs.5,01,000/-. The Court answered that Rs.4,51,000/- was proved to be received. Issue no.3 was that whether the said Agreement dated 11.04.2007 was a forged document ? The Court held that it is not proved. In sum and substance, with respect to Issue nos. 1, 2 & 3 the Court held that that the defendant has agreed to sell 10000 sqft of land, out of Khasra No.212/58 @ Rs.511/- per sqft for a total sale consideration of Rs.51,10,000/- and out of that Rs.4,51,000/- was received and that the agreement is not forged. With respect to defence raised by the appellant that he struck a deal for sale of only 2000 sqft of land, the Court further held that Agreement purports that 10,000 sqft of land was agreed to be sold by the defendant and not 2000 sqft. and accordingly decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant has preferred this appeal and cross- objection has been preferred by the plaintiff/respondent against the finding of payment of Rs.4,51,000/- claiming that a sale consideration of Rs.5,01,000/- was paid.

5(i) Learned coun