IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 29 OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 111 of 2010 MODI TRADERS AND OTHERS Versus PARVATIBAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Sanjeev Tiwari - Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Sripad Chitnis - Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Mr. Dilip Awasthi - Govt. Advocate for State.

JUDGMENT Heard on the question of admission.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2009 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mungaoli, District Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2008, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2008 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Mungaoli, in Civil Suit No. 125-A/1999.

3. Appellant is the plaintiff, who had filed a suit for specific performance of contract as well as for possession in respect of Survey No.

164, Area 4.180 hectares, situated in Village Chachukheda.

4. The undisputed fact is that original defendant Hiralal died during the pendency of the suit, and accordingly, his legal representatives were taken on record. Similarly, out of the total disputed land, 0.418 hectares of land Signature Not Verified was alienated to Defendant No. 3, namely, Sudarshan, by registered sale deed dated 24.07.1998, and accordingly, Sudarshan was also impleaded as defendant. It is also an undisputed fact that Survey No. 164, Area 4.180 hectares, was in the ownership and in possession of deceased Hiralal. After the death of deceased Hiralal, the names of his legal representatives have also been mutated in the revenue records. It was the claim of plaintiff that the plaintiff, which is a partnership firm, had entered into an agreement to purchase Survey No. 164, Area 4.180 hectares, situated in Village Chachukheda for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- out of which Rs. 10,500/- were paid by way of advance and remaining Rs. 4,500/- were decided to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The agreement was executed on 11.10.1982, and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.05.1983. It is also the case of the plaintiff that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract, and on multiple occasions, they had verbally requested Hiralal and had also issued notices to him, but in spite of that, defendant Hiralal did not execute the sale deed. Accordingly, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract, mesne profits, as well as for possession.

5. Defendants filed their written statement and denied the execution of agreement to sell by Hiralal. It was pleaded that for the marriage expenses of the son of Padam Singh, some amount was taken by way of loan, and after the settlement, it was found that an amount of Rs. 1,5000/- is outstanding and for the repayment of the said loan amount/outstanding amount, Hiralal had executed the document by way of security of amount which was outstanding Signature Not Verified against Padam Singh. It was claimed that the plaintiffs, by misleading and misrepresenting defendant Hiralal, had got the agreement to sell executed, and it was also pleaded that plaintiff firm is in the business of mortgaging the land. It was submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the property was partitioned, and Padam Singh had bona fidely alienated his share to Sudarshan, which was to the extent of 0.418 hectares. It was further pleaded that at that time, market value of the land in question was much higher, therefore, it could not have been sold for a consideration amount of Rs.

15,000/-.

6. The State of Madhya Pradesh did not file any written statement, and accordingly, it was proceeded ex parte.

7. Defendant No. 3 Sudarshan filed his written statement and also denied the plaint averments. It was stated that by registered sale deed dated 24.07.1998, he had purchased 0.418 hectares of land, and his name has also been mutated in the revenue records. It was also claimed by Defendant No. 3, Sudarshan, that he had no knowledge about