2026:CGHC:11146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 157 of 2010 Judgment reserved on 03/12/2025 Judgment delivered on 03/03/2026 Beniram Sahu, S/o Shri Devi Prasad Sahu, aged about 51 yrs, Cultivator, R/o Vill. Panhada, Tah. Berala, Dist. Durg, C.G. At Present R/o Q. No. 4/B, Street

25, Sector 4, Bhilai (wrongly written as Bhilai Nagar), Tah. & Dist. Durg, C.G.

… Appellant Versus

1. Virendra Kumar Thakur, S/o Nathu Singh Thakur, aged about 45 yrs, R/o Vill. Panhada, Tah. Berala, Dist. Durg, C.G. At present R/o Sonkar Para, Near Ganjmandi, Navapara (Rajim), Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

2. State of C.G., Through Collector, Durg, C.G.

... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Judgment VED PRAKASH

1. The instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, DEWANGAN VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.03 judgment and decree dated 16-09-2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Bemetara, District Durg, in Civil Suit No. 06-A/2009, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is to be taken as per their status in the civil suit.

3. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 2/2, 42/2, 833/2, 968/2 and 2039/2, total admeasuring 2.30 hectares, situated at Village Pahanda, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”), which was admittedly owned by Defendant No. 1. The case of the plaintiff is that on 24/03/2007, Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land to him for a total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is pleaded that the entire sale consideration was paid in cash on the same day in the presence of witnesses, and that Defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the suit land along with the Rin-Pustika to the plaintiff. On that date, an agreement to sell was executed by Defendant No. 1, acknowledging receipt of the full consideration and stating that the plaintiff would be at liberty to have the sale deed registered at his convenience. The plaintiff asserts that since 24/03/2007, he has been in continuous, peaceful possession and cultivation of the suit land.

4. According to the plaintiff, although Defendant No. 1 assured that he would execute and register the sale deed whenever required, he subsequently began to avoid the matter on one pretext or another. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 22/05/2009 calling upon Defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed, but the same was refused. A further notice dated 25/08/2009 was also sent, which was again not accepted. Apprehending that Defendant No. 1 might obtain a duplicate revenue record and alienate the suit land to a third party, the plaintiff approached the Tahsildar seeking restraint on the issuance of copies of revenue records. It is further pleaded that when proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar, Defendant No. 1 appeared on 31/08/2009 and denied the transaction. The plaintiff thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, before the competent authority for adjudication of proper stamp duty on the agreement dated 24/03/2007. The Collector of Stamps determined the market value and directed payment of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 49,450/-, which the plaintiff duly deposited on 26/10/2009. Endorsement regarding payment of the requisite stamp duty was made on the back side of the agreement. The plaintiff contends that he has thus complied with all legal requirements and has always been ready and willing to get the sale deed registered in his favour.

5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Defendant No. 1, with dishonest intention, is denying execution of the agreement and is attempting to sell t