NAFR

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Judgment on Board

28/04/2026

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 15.04.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.37-A/2008, whereby the plaintiff’s suit seeking relief for specific performance of contract dated 20.11.2007 has been dismissed. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the trial Court.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of the suit land bearing part of Khasra No. 1215/1 admeasuring 1750 square feet situated at Village Mangla, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, valued at Rs. 3,50,000/-. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit property and defendant No. 2, being his son, was managing his affairs and land transactions. The plaintiff pleaded that on 20.11.2007, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property to him for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- and executed an agreement to sell in his favour after receiving advance amounts from time to time aggregating to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The balance sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was further pleaded that despite repeated requests and extension of time, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. It was also alleged that thereafter defendant No. 4 purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed despite having knowledge of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiff. On such pleadings, the plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance directing execution and registration of the sale deed in his favour, delivery of possession of the suit property, and declaration that the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 4 be declared null and void.

3. (i) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had never entered into any agreement to sell with the plaintiff nor executed any agreement in his favour. According to the defendants, defendant No. 1 himself managed his property affairs and had never authorized defendant No. 2 to deal with or sell the suit land on his behalf. The defendant No. 1 & 2 further denied that any negotiation had taken place with the plaintiff or his father regarding sale of the suit property or that any stamp paper was purchased for execution of an agreement. They also denied receipt of any amount from the plaintiff towards advance sale consideration, including the alleged sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 had already sold the suit property on 04.11.2008 in favour of defendant No. 4, Smt. Pramila Sahu, through a valid registered sale deed. On such pleadings, dismissal of the suit with costs was prayed for.

(ii) Defendant No. 4 filed her written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that no agreement to sell was ever executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was false and fabricated. It was further contended that the stamp papers were purchased by the plaintiff himself and the alleged document neither bore valid signatures nor inspired confidence. It was also pleaded that the suit was not properly valued and was otherwise not maintainable. By way of counterclaim, defendant No. 4 asserted that after due purchase through a registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 for valuable consideration, the land stood mutated in her name and she was in lawful possession thereof. On such basis, she sought declaration of title, confirmation of possession and consequential reliefs.

(iii) In reply to the counterclaim, the plain