IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 3^rd OF AUGUST, 2022 FIRST APPEAL NO. 543 of 1997 BETWEEN RAJENDRA SINGH PAL SINGH S/O JOGENDRA SINGH KHANUJA, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O BAGRA TAWA, TEHSIL BABAI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD, (M.P.)

APPELLANT (BY MS. SANJANA SAHNI- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. VIJAY KUMAR JADAM (DEAD) BY LRs.:

A. SMT. BHOORIYA BAI W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR JADAM, AGED 33 YEARS;

B. ROHIT KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR JADAM, AGED 12 YEARS;

C. POORAN KUMAR S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR JADAM, AGED 10 YEARS;

D. KU. LALITA D/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR JADAM, AGED 6 YEARS (NOS.(B) TO (D) MINORS THROUGH MOTHER SMT. BHOORIYA BAI, W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR JADAM)

ALL R/O GRAM MANAGAON, TAHSIL BABAI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH COLLECTOR, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

RESPONDENTS (SHRI ISHAAN SINGH PAWAR- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI MUKUND AGRAWAL- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/STATE)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

This first appeal has been filed by appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.09.1997 passed by 3^rd Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No.17-A/1993 dismissing the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.07.1991 (Ex.P-1). In alternative, the plaintiff also sought relief of refund of advance consideration amount of Rs.60,000/-, which was also refused on the premise of failing to prove the agreement (Ex.P-1) by the plaintiff.

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale with regard to agriculture land khasra Nos.70/1 area 0.37 acre; 70/2 area 2.00 acre; 85/2 area 0.25 acre and 267/1 area 3.34 acre, total area 5.96 acre, situated in village Managaon (Bagada), patwari halka No.26. It is alleged that the said land came to the defendant 1 in family partition and is so recorded in the revenue papers. It is further alleged that defendant 1 is exclusive owner of the said land, regarding which he entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.1,26,000/- out of which, defendant 1 received an amount of Rs.60,000/- and agreed to execute registered sale deed upto 31.12.1991. As the defendant failed to execute the sale deed upto 31.12.1991, the plaintiff sent a telegram to the defendant, but he avoided to execute the sale deed. Hence the suit was filed after impleading the State of Madhya Pradesh as party to the suit as defendant 2 for execution of sale deed, as well as for restoration of possession of the land and in alternative claimed refund of advance consideration amount of Rs.60,000/- along with 18% interest.

3. The respondent/defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that he is not owner/bhoomiswami of the suit lands and he never entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff and he has also not received any telegram. In additional pleas it is contended that the plaintiff and his father are money lenders and are in habit to get executed agreements with an intention to grab the property of poor persons and this is the plaintiff who got fabricated the document in question without making any payment to the defendant. He further contended that the actual cost of the land is Rs.3 lacs, therefore, there was no question to sell it for Rs.1,26,000/-. It is further contended that he was not required to sell the land in question because his father was taking care of the land in question. It is further contended that the land of survey Nos.70/1 and 70/2 was purchased by his mother Jijiyabai, which could not have been given/allotted to the defendant in partition, hence he was not in a position to execute any agreement with regard to these lands. Denying the authenticity of the partition proceeding