IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 1756 of 2025 SANJAY AND OTHERS Versus SUBHASH CHANDRA MANDIL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri P.C. Chandil - Advocate for appellants.

Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - Advocate for respondent No.1.

JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23/08/2025 passed by Xth District Judge, Morena in RCSA No.500045/2013, by which the suit filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of contract has been partially decreed.

2. The appellants are the defendants who have lost their case from the trial Court.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of a house bearing Municipal No.154/4, ad-measuring 8.80 meters in length from north to south and 3.95 meters width from east to west direction and 4.60 meters on the first floor, situated in Ward No. 16 in Morena. The disputed property was the ancestral property of Bhogiram, who got the same in partition dated 07/11/1981. The defendants are the legal representatives of Bhogiram. Bhogiram died on 17/11/1997, and accordingly after his death, his widow Muliya Bai, five sons Ramswaroop - defendant No. 1, Ashok - defendant No. 2, Munnalal - defendant No.3, Maheshchandra - defendant No. 4, Rajendra alias Raju - defendant No. 5, and three daughters Smt. Meera - defendant No. 6, Smt. Indra - defendant No. 7, and Smt. Rama Devi - defendant No.8, were his legal representatives. The defendants No.1 to 5 and Muliya Bai executed an agreement to sell dated 06/02/2011 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs. 58,50,000/- and also received Rs.5,00,000/- by way of advance. Muliya Bai and Rajendra have expired. Rajendra was unmarried and was not survived by any legal heir. The agreement to sell Exhibit P-1 was also got impounded. The defendants No. 2, 4 and 5, namely Ashok, Mahesh and Rajendra had also given their consent for execution of the sale deed on 26/03/2011. The legal representatives of defendant No.1, Ramswaroop, had filed a Civil Suit No.4/2011, and a temporary injunction order was passed against alienation, but the said civil suit was dismissed in default on 04/09/2012.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants No.1 to 5 and Muliya Bai had executed an agreement to sell dated 06/02/2011, which was got notarized on 07/02/2011. The said house had fallen to the share of Bhogiram, who was the father of defendants No.1 to 8, in a partition dated 07/11/1981. Bhogiram had expired on 17/11/1997, and therefore, defendants have inherited the property and defendants have agreed to sell the said property to plaintiff for a consideration amount of Rs.58,50,000/- and received Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was the case of the plaintiff that according to the agreement to sell, the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 06/04/2011, but on one pretext or the other, neither the tax receipts nor the mutation documents were provided by the defendants to the plaintiff, and every time they avoided execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. Whenever the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed, then it was narrated by the defendants that a civil suit is pending, therefore for the time being they can not execute the sale deed, and it was assured that as soon as the civil suit is decided, they will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further claimed that the defendants No.1 to 5 also got a collusive suit instituted against them by the other legal representatives and ultimately said suit was dismissed in default on 04/09/2012. It was further contended that despite the consent given by defendants No. 2, 4 and 5, still the other defendants were not executing the sale deed. On 08/04/2013, when the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed, th