NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Reserved for judgment on 10.07.2023 Pronouncement for judgment on 08.11.2023 FA No.171 of 2020  Sumardas S/o Late Khorbahra Ram Khare Aged About 60 Years ( Retired Vanpal), Forest Department, R/o Village- Pendri, Ward No. 18, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District :

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus

1. Rishi Mishra S/o Late R.N. Mishra Aged About 43 Years R/o Ramadhin Marg, Ward No. 24, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Pushpa Mishra W/o Rishi Mishra Aged About 38 Years R/o Ramadhin Marg, Ward No. 24, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. Amit Deslahre Aged About 40 Years Profession- Advocate, R/o Bakhtawar Chal, Gali No. 9, Tulsipur, Tahsil And District-

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

4. Manoj Singh Chandel S/o Khatanand Singh Chandel R/o Tulsipur, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District :

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

5. Naresh Ramteke Aged About 42 Years R/o Hariom Jewelers, Near Talab Shankarpur, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

7. Rajesh Singh S/o Rajdev Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Station Road, Mudipar, Post Baghera, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS)

Present:-

For Appellants: Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 7: Shri Uttam Pandey along with Shri Vikas Bajpai, Advocates For Respondent No.3 :- Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No.6/State: Shri Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Judgment /Order Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.161-A/2012, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the Court below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming declaration to the effect that the registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2012 be declared as null and void as the same has been obtained by defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre by playing fraud upon him with regard to the land in question bearing Khasra No.219/4, 219/5, 235/1, 489/3 admeasuring 0.50 acre, 0.37 acre, 0.99 ½ acre and 0.61 acre respectively, situated at Village Pendri, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon and also for the injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and/or restraining from creating any third party interest pending decision of the suit. According to the plaintiff, he owns 8.32 acres of land at Village Pendri, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon and since his house adjacent to the G. E. Road, Rajnandgaon was acquired for the construction of four lane, therefore, he was constructing a house at his village and as he was in need of money, therefore, in the month of January, 2012, he discussed with one Baliram, a resident of his village, for obtaining the loan amount, who informed him that defendant No.3-Amit Deshlahre, who is an Advocate by profession, used to provide loan on interest and introduced the plaintiff with him and when he (plaintiff) demanded loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, it was told by him that the said amount is not available with him, but, he could provide the same from one “Seth” and demanded his Rin Pustika and Identity Card. It is pleaded further by the plaintiff that the said defendant took him to the Tahsil Office, Rajnandgaon,