IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA st ON THE 21 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 2458 of 2024 VINEET SHARMA AND ANOTHER Versus BADRIPRASAD JATAV AND ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri N.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Saket Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.

FIRST APPEAL No. 1200 of 2025 VINEET SHARMA AND ANOTHER Versus BADRIPRASAD JATAV AND ANOTHER Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri N.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Saket Sharma,Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.

JUDGMENT

By this common judgment, FA No. 1200/25 shall also be decided.

2. Appellants are plaintiffs who have lost their case from the Court below. 3. FA No. 2458/24 has been filed against the decree by which the suit filed by appellants has been dismissed by III District Judge, Morena on 24/12/2024 in RCS No.181A/2021, whereas FA No. 1200/25 has been filed against the decree which has been passed by the trial Court against appellants after allowing the counter-claim.

4. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellants filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. The undisputed facts are that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 is the owner of survey No. 1123 area 0.2900 hectare, Survey No. 1136 area 0.1800 hectare and Survey No. 1137 area 0.2000 hectares. Since defendant No.1 was in need of money for his personal needs, therefore, on 28/9/2020, for meeting out his personal expenses, he entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs. 4 crores and 80 lakhs. A written (notarized) agreement to sell was executed. It was agreed upon between the parties that defendant No. 1 after receiving the entire consideration amount shall sell the land as a whole or in different size of plots either in the name of plaintiffs or in the name of persons so required by the plaintiffs. As per the agreement, plaintiffs agreed to sell two plots to one Banwari Lal Upadhyay. A slot was also booked in the Office of Sub Registrar, Morena on 28/8/2021, but since the prices of land had escalated, therefore intention of defendant No.1 became dishonest and he refused to sign the sale deed. As a result, the sale deeds in respect of two plots could not be executed in favor of Banwari Lal Upadhyay. Thereafter, appellants obtained the documents pertaining to the land in dispute and then came to know that apart from defendant No.1, the name of his mother is also recorded as a co-owner, whereas defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell by projecting that he is the sole owner of the property in dispute. Accordingly, it was alleged that defendant No.1, by playing fraud on the plaintiff, had entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute on 28/9/2020. It was pleaded that appellants are still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed after making payment of the remaining amount of rupees 4 crore and 32 lakhs. Since on 28/8/2021, defendant No.1 has refused to execute the sale deed in respect of two plots in favor of Banwari Lal, therefore, plaintiffs issued a registered notice dated 8/9/2021 through their counsel Shri Jagdish Chandra Agrawal and a public notice was also got published in the newspaper. After receiving the notice, defendant No.1 requested the appellants that they should not take any criminal action against him. The name of his mother was wrongly recorded as a co-owner in the revenue records and he also claimed that since he is the sole legal representative of his deceased mother, therefore he would get the name of his mother deleted from the revenue records and would execute the sale deeds at the earliest. When appellants verified the information given by defendant No.1, then they also came to know that defendant No.1 is the sole