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

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 193 of 2015 ASHOK KUMAR Versus BHAGWAN SINGH THR. LRS PRADEEP AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellant.

None for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, though served.

Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent No.8.

Shri C.P. Singh, G.A. for respondent No.9/State.

JUDGMENT This first appeal, under section 96 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22/8/2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No.77A/12, by which the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for specific performance of contract has been dismissed.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract pleading inter alia that defendant No.1 was the owner and in possession of land situated in Village Ghatera Tahsil Tyonda area 2.25 Bigha, which is also known as Furtala Wala Khet. The aforesaid property was received by defendant No.1 in family partition. Defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property for consideration amount of Rs.37,100/- per Bigha and in all it was agreed that 2.25 Bighas of land shall be sold to plaintiff for consideration amount of Rs.1,06,175/-. The agreement to sell was arrived at on 5/4/2009 and, accordingly, on the very same day the agreement to sell was written and in all Rs.35,100/- was paid by way of advance and it was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed by 1/7/2009 after making payment of the remaining amount. Thereafter, on account of marriage of his daughter, defendant No.1 demanded an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- which was paid by plaintiff on 24/4/2009 and on the reverse side of the agreement to sell, an endorsement to that effect was made. Thereafter, on 2/5/2009, an additional amount of Rs.4,000/- was taken by defendant No.1 and in all it was alleged that defendant No.1 has received a total amount of Rs.54,000/- in advance. It was further pleaded that possession of Furtala Wala Khet which is situated in Aaraji Nos. 733 and 734, area 2.25 Bigha, was also handed over to plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement to sell and since then plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the same. It was further pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.1 is aware of the fact that plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute. It was claimed that plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining consideration amount and was ready to get the sale deed executed, but thereafter defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff that since another person is ready to give higher consideration amount, therefore, he would not alienate the property to plaintiff. It was pleaded that plaintiff is still ready and willing to pay the remaining consideration amount of Rs.52,175/- and he is also ready and willing to bear the registration expenses. A registered notice dated 10/8/2010 was issued to defendant No.1 which was refused and, accordingly, it was pleaded that decree for specific performance of contract be passed against defendant No.1 and in case if defendant No.1 refuses to execute the sale deed then the same shall be got done through the Court. The suit was later on amended and it was pleaded that defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed in favor of defendant No.2 Ram Singh on 25/5/2011 without any authority.

3. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that no agreement to sell was executed. The survey number of the lands were not mentioned in the agreement to sell. It was denied that defendant No.1 had received Rs.15,000/- on 24/4/2009 and Rs.4,000/- on 2/5/2009. It was further denied that defendant No.1 has received an amount of Rs.54,000/- by way of advance. Defendant No.1 had not purchased the stamp paper but the stamp paper was purchased by the plaintiff. It was claim