2025:CGHC:38359-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEETKAUR KAUR Date:

2025.08.07 14:32:49 +0530 First Appeal No. 193 of 2016 S. M. Umak (Sanjay Madhukarrao Umak) S/o Shree M.G. Umak, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 144, Street 11, Ward No.11, Ramnagar Kohka, P.S., P.O.- Supela, Bhilai, District Revenue And Civil-

Durg, Chhattisgarh.

… Appellant/Plaintiff versus

1 Kalu Ram (Died) Through L.R.S. As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 22-10-2021.

1.1 - Kanta Prashad Sinha @ Parghania S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram R/o Village Bhardakala, Police Station Arjunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

2 - Yoganandan Yadav S/o Late Shree Ramprashad Yadav, R/o 12- Adarsh Nagar, P.S. And District-

Purvi Singh Bhumi Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents/Defendents For Appellant : Mr. Yogesh C. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None though served For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

(State)

DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board

04.0 8 .202 5 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of CPC calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 26/08/2015 passed by learned 6^th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2013 by which plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed by that Court finding no merit.

(For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and for declaration that the sale deed dated 24/06/2008 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, thereby, alienating a part of the suit land, is null and void and for permanent injunction and possession stating inter alia that he entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No. 1 on 29/05/2003 (Ex. P/1) with regard to suit land bearing Khasra No. 5243 area 2.02 hectares i.e. 5.05 acres situated at Village Kohka, Shantinagar for which he paid an advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and it was agreed that defendant No. 1 will get the suit land demarcated within two years from the date of the agreement i.e. 31/05/2005 and get it registered in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter, receive the remaining consideration amount at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre which totals to Rs. 17,17,000/- (excluding Rs. 50,000/-), but even after completion of the two years, defendant No. 1 did not carry out demarcation of the suit land and therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but on 24/06/2008, defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and sold a part of suit land bearing Khasra No. 5243 area 0.80 hectare i.e. 2 acres to him which led to the filing of the instant suit for above-mentioned reliefs.

3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and opposed the plaint averments stating that plaintiff did not have requisite sale consideration and therefore, he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was further stated that he executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 with the consent of the plaintiff, as such, suit deserves to be dismissed.

4. Defendant No. 2 also filed his written statement and stated that he is bona fide purchaser of the suit land as the period for specific performance of contract ended on 31/05/2008 and thereafter, he has purchased 2 acres of suit land from defendant No. 1 on 24/06/2008. He has further stated that plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and answered them as stated below :-

वाद प्रश्न नि(cid:7