In specific performance cases, failing to prove crucial elements like contract validity and advance payment nullifies claims.

1. This First Appeal has been filed under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908,challenging the decision dated 09 February,2021 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (FTC),Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Civil Case No. H - 01B / 2017 "Jitendra Edikar v. Chetan Kumar Chandraker and Others" wherein accepting the claim of plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 Jitendra Edikar, the appellant Chetan Kumar Chandraker was ordered to execute the sale deed of 0.80 hectare of land out of agricultural land Khasra No. 737, area - 1.69 hectare situated in village - Bemcha, Patwari Halka No. - 88/36 Revenue Inspector Circle, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund in favor of Jitendra Edikar within six months Which was further referred to as the "impunged judgment " and the said 0.80 hectare land is being referred to as the "suit land".

2. The plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 Jitendra Edikar's case before the trial Court, in brief, was that the appellant Chetan Kumar Chandraker executed an agreement on 15/10/2014 to sell the "suit land" to him for Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) as exhibit P - 1 in the presence of witnesses and then he gave Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakh fifty thousand) in cash to the appellant. It was decided in the agreement that the remaining amount would be paid and a registered sale deed would be executed in two months. This agreement was registered on 16/10/2014 in the Sub Registrar's Office, Mahasamund. The plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 Jitendra Edikar repeatedly requested the appellant in this regard. However, the appellant kept demanding time to execute the sale deed. When the appellant did not execute the sale deed, he sent a notice by registered post (Exhibit P - 2) to the appellant. Still, the appellant did not get the deed executed. Then the cause of action arose and the plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 filed a claim in the Court.

3. Before the trial Court, the appellant, denying his contrary pleadings in the plaint, filed a counter - claim to the effect that he had not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the "suit land" nor had the plaintiff paid him Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Fifty Thousand). Plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 did not even send him any notice. The fact is that he had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) from plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 as he needed money for the treatment of his elder brother. Then he gave a self cheque of IDBI Bank, Mahasamund on 15/10/2014 which amount he paid in two installments of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand) along with interest. The plaintiff / Respondent has already paid the amount to No. 1, there is no transaction remaining between them. The plaintiff / Respondent No. 1 has not clarified anywhere where and how he had obtained such a huge amount of Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Fifty Thousand)? He did not enter into any agreement with the plaintiff / Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the question of execution of the sale deed does not arise.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the issues of the case and took evidence of both the parties in which, on behalf of plaintiff / Respondent No. 1, along with himself, the witness of the agreement Exhibit P - 1, Advocate Sheikh Wajid (Plaintiff Witness No. 2), Patwari Rakesh Kumar Thawait (Plaintiff Witness No. 3) and Registration Clerk Santosh Kumar Sahu (Plaintiff Witness No. 4) who was posted as Registrar Clerk in Sub Registrar Office Mahasamund, were examined. Whereas, on the other hand, from the appellant side, the appellant Chetan Kumar Chandraker himself was examined. After hearing