2024:CGHC:38235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 92 of 2015  Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Ram Prasad Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Pendra, Tahsil Pendra District Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus

1. Vinod Kumar And Anr. S/o Shri Bissu Kachhi Aged About 33 Years R/o Pendra, Tahsil Pendra, District Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur ... Respondents (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant/plaintiff : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For State/respondent No. 2 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

27 .09.2024 Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law.

1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 99-A of 2011 dated 13.12.2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on the basis of an oral agreement dated 12.10.2007 entered into between the parties pertaining to survey No. 1889, ad-measuring 2.50 acres situated at Village Pendra, District Bilaspur in consideration of Rs. 17,500/- per acre. It is further pleaded that Rs. 8,000/- was given as earnest money and later on, Rs. 200/- was given to defendant No. 1. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff approached defendant No. 1 many times for execution of the sale- deed, and thereafter, a legal notice was sent on 08.10.2010. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1 failed to perform his part; therefore, a Civil Suit was filed for the specific performance of the contract and execution of the sale-deed.

3. Defendant No. 1 failed to appear before the learned trial Court and he was proceeded ex-parte. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree of specific performance of the contract, and consequently, dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no registered agreement between the parties, and the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The learned trial Court held that according to the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act, 1882’) since there were no registered documents between the parties; the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief. The learned first appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

4. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that since there was an oral agreement between the parties; therefore, there was no need for any registered instrument with regard to the agreement entered into between the parties. He further submitted that out of Rs. 43,750/-, 8,000/- was given as earnest money, and thereafter, Rs. 200/- was given on 12.10.2007. He also submitted that as the plaintiff had possession of the suit property; therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. It is further contended that a substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. She submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove his case before the learned trial Court. She further submitted that there was no registered document with regard to the agreement to sell between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. She also submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property; therefore, the provisions of Section 53 A of the Act, 1882 would apply but the plaintiff failed to prove the ingredients of Section 53A of the Act, 1882; therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the Civil Suit and appeal was also dismissed, and thus, there is concurrent findings recorded by the l