IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 398 of 2016 MUDDASSAR KHAN Versus SMT. GEETA BAI Appearance:

Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the appellant.

ORDER Despite of service on sole respondent, as per office note dated

02.06.2018, nobody has marked presence for the respondent, therefore, the matter is heard finally.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2015 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.435-A/2011, dismissing the suit.

3. In short, the facts of the case are that the appellant has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 02.01.2009 (Ex.P/1) claiming therein that he is owner and in possession of the suit property i.e. House No.39, Pant Nagar, Hinotiya Kachiyana, which is a part of Kh. No. 39/3 and 90/3, PC No. 21 situated Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal. Total area of the suit house is 15x30=450 sq.f.t.

4. As per the plaint averments, the said suit house has been mortgaged by the respondent/defendant with the UCO Bank for obtaining the loan. Since the respondent/defendant was unable to repay the loan amount, she executed an agreement to sale with the appellant on 02.01.2009 for sale of the suit house. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the total sale consideration of Rs.7 lakh was agreed to be paid to the respondent/defendant.

5 . As per the plaint averments, Rs. 5 lakh was paid by the the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant on the date of execution of the agreement/contract itself as an advance out of the total sale consideration. The remaining amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the respondent/defendant within 20 days thereafter. In acknowledgment of the receipt of the said amount, the respondent/defendant signed the agreement document.

6 . As per the agreement, it was also agreed that the respondent/defendant would repay the amount of loan and after receiving the original documents and the NOC from the Bank in respect of the suit house, she would execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. In addition, it was also agreed that if the respondent/defendant is unable to execute the sale deed within 20 days, the period of agreement shall be deemed to be extended. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant, citing his financial difficulties, requested for remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was also paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant.

7 . As per the plaint averments, when after repeated request the respondent/defendant did not execute the sale deed, the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent/defendant on 15.03.2011, which was replied by the respondent/defendant denying the allegation and stating that her signatures were obtained fraudulently by the appellant/plaintiff on blank paper and consequently she refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract/agreement and injunction.

8. The respondent/defendant has filed written statement denying all the plaint averments. The respondent/defendant has taken a specific stand in the written statement that the signatures, which are shown to be of the respondent/defendant, are in fact not of the respondent/defendant and the documents have been forged and prepared by the appellant/plaintiff with the intention of misusing them. The respondent/defendant has denied that because she was unable to repay the loan amount, she expressed her wish to appellant to sale the suit house. She has also denied that the appellant had given his consent for purchase of suit house and accordingly, an agreement in that respect was executed on 02.01.2009 and she complied its terms and conditions.

9. The respondent/defendant has denied that as per the terms o