NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FA No.9 of 2014 Judgment reserved on : 02.04.2024 Judgment delivered on : 09.07.2024  Uttam Kumar Vyapari, S/o Anil Kumar Vyapari, Aged About 45 Years, Caste Vaishya Kapali, R/o Chathirma, Present R/o Village Subhash Nagar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Civil and Revenue District - Surguja, Chhattisgash (Plaintiff)

---- Appellant Versus

1. Narayan Rai (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16.08.2023

1.1 - (A) Smt. Geeta Rai W/o Late Narayan Rai Aged About 56 Years

1.2 - (B) Navendu Rai S/o Late Narayan Rai Aged About 38 Years

1.3 - (C) Reena Rai D/o Late Narayan Rai Aged About 35 Years All R/o Village Digma, Neharu Nagar Near Goushala P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Defendants)

2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.2 Mr. Topilal Bareth, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.36-A/2011, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. (The parties herein shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction against the defendant no.1 in respect of suit land bearing Kh. No.393, Area 0.70 R.A. situated at Village Chathirma, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). It was pleaded in the plaint that an agreement to sale the suit property was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 on 18.10.2003. The defendant No.1 agreed to sale the suit property in a consideration of Rs.80,000/- and accordingly the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the defendant no.1. Since, the suit land was a land given to the defendant no.1 on Patta under Rehabilitation Scheme, a permission from the Collector was required, therefore the defendant no.1 had stated that he will execute the sale deed after obtaining permission from the Collector, Surguja. An application for permission to sale the suit property to the plaintiff was filed by the defendant no.1 before the Collector, Surguja on 18.10.2003. The Collector directed the Tahsildar to give a report on which a revenue proceeding bearing No.74-A-21/2003-04 was registered by the Tahsildar. A proclamation was issued and objections were called. The defendant no.1 appeared on 29.12.2003 and recorded his statement. Cause of action arose when the defendant no.1 filed an application before the Tahsildar to reject his application for permission to sale the suit land to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 has denied to perform his part of contract and execute sale deed as per agreement dated

18.10.2003. Hence, the suit for the aforesaid reliefs was filed.

3. The defendant No.1 denied all allegations in his written statement and stated that he had executed agreement with the plaintiff and he received Rs.75,000/- in cash from the plaintiff, but the Collector, Ambikapur did not give permission to sale his land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff tried to forcefully take possession of the land in the year 2011 so he filed complaint on 27.11.2011 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar. The plaintiff is trying to grab his land and filed this suit. The suit land was given to the defendant No.1 on lease so agreement is illegal and the suit is also barred by limitation so the plaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record held that an agreement to sale dated 18.10.2003 was executed between the parties to sale the suit property and an amount of Rs.80,000/- was also paid as consideration amoun