ABHIGYA SAXENA NAFR Digitally signed by ABHIGYA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SAXENA FA No. 281 of 2018 Reserved On 05.12.2025 Delivered On 09/01/2026

1 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Chintaram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Presently Resident Of House No. A/1669, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Korba, Permanent Resident Of Village Sankri, Post Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Ankit Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years At Present Resident Of House No. A/1669, Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Korba, Permanent Resident Of Village Sankri, Post Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendants), District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Govind Bhai Patel S/o Ramji Bhai Patel Aged About 60 Years C/o Royal Tiles Indira Timber Market, Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted For Respondent(s) :

by Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate.

(Division Bench)

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

Per , Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The present first appeal has been preferred by the appellants, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2012 by the learned Ninth Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby the suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff was allowed and the defendants were directed to execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties.

2. Facts of the case :- The case of the plaintiff/respondent, in substance, is that on 30.03.2012 the defendant No.1, for himself and on behalf of defendant No.2 who was a minor at the relevant time, executed an agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 55/12 and 55/13, admeasuring a total area of 3000 sq. ft., situated at Village Dumartarai, P.H. No. 115/38, R.I.C. Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.), for a total consideration of Rs. 10,25,000/-, out of which an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants; as per the terms of the agreement, the registered sale deed was to be executed within 45 days from the date of the agreement, however, despite repeated requests, defendant No.1 avoided execution of the sale deed on one pretext or another, compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 30.07.2012, and as the defendants still failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract. Upon service of notice, the defendants/appellants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments, while admitting execution of the agreement to sale and stipulation of 45 days for execution of the sale deed, contending inter alia that the plaintiff was merely a broker who failed to arrange a purchaser, that defendant No.1 had completed all revenue formalities and remained present at the office of the Deputy Registrar on 26.07.2012, 27.07.2012 and 28.07.2012 for execution of the sale deed, but the plaintiff did not appear, and therefore, on expiry of the stipulated period, the agreement ceased to be binding, rendering the suit liable to dismissal. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed five issues, recorded evidence of the parties, and upon appreciation of the material on record, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2018, directing the appellants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to get the sale deed registered through the Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2018 are illegal, perverse, erroneous and contrary to the pleadings, evidence,