[2025:RJ-JP:33401]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 269/2024 Sunil Dewan S/o Shri Madan Lal Dewan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) Resident Of A-4/1 Ganesh Marg, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur Ant Presently Residing At 124 Tulsiram Marg, Vaishali Nagar, (Guru Jambeshwar Nagar Colony) Jaipur (Raj.).

----Plaintiff/Appellant Versus

1. Kedar Dewan S/o Late Shri Jagannath Dewan, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Plot No. B-70 Sahkar Marg, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj,).

2. Sub Registrar Officer, Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, (Raj.).

----Defendants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta, alongwith Mr. Pratyush Sharma &

Ms. Pratibha Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Adhiraj Modi Mr. Shreyansh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

Reserved on ::: August 21, 2025 Pronounced on ::: September 04, 2025

1. The instant civil first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.3, Neem- ka-Thana (Raj.) [for short ‘the court below’] in Civil Suit No.11/2020 B.T. 97/2022 (CIS No.11/2020), Sunil Dewan v.

Kedar Dewan & Anr., whereby the court below while allowing the application filed by defendant/respondent No.1- Kedar Dewan under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, dismissed the plaint filed by the plaintiff/ appellant for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction.

2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that plaintiff /appellant filed a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendant /respondent on 08.09.2020 in the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Neem-ka-Thana, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) which was registered at No.11/2020 B.T. 97/2022 mentioning therein that there is an agriculture land bearing old Khasra No. 309 measuring 0.82 hectare, Khasra No. 310 measuring 0.39 hectare, Khasra No. 311/1measuring 0.76 hectare, Khasra No. 312 measuring 0.11 hectare, Khasra No. 313 measuring 0.20 hectare, Khasra No. 314 measuring 0.51 hectare, in all 6 khasra measuring 2.79 hectare recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 Kedar Diwan. He was also having 1/5th share in land of khasra No. 306 measuring 0.15 hectares relating to a well. The defendant had agreed to sale the aforesaid land on 21.10.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 25.00 lac and an amount of Rs. 5.00 lac was paid on 21.01.2008 vide cheque No. 696738 and further amount of Rs. 5 lac was paid on 13.12.2008 vide cheque No. 588383. It was further pleaded that an amount of Rs. 10.00 lac was paid on 05.02.2009 vide cheque No. 288393. Having received Rs. 20.00 lac in advance, the defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement on 5/2/2009 in favour of plaintiff /appellant which was got registered with the Sub Registrar on 09.02.2009. It was further pleaded in the plaint that there was a clause in the agreement wherein the defendant was permitted to repay the amount of Rs. 20.00 lac within 12 months on that event the agreement to be cancelled. However, the defendant though gave a cheque No. 389736 of Rs. 10.00 lac on 29.03.2010 and cheque No. 389737 of Rs. 10.00 lac on 29.03.2010 but both the cheques were dishonored on 28.05.2010 and 01.06.2010 and therefore the defendant did not avail the said right of cancellation of agreement having failed to repay the amount and agreement to sale remain in force. It was further mentioned that plaintiff called upon the defendant to execute the sale deed but looking to the relation, he assured that he will execute the sale deed very soon and plaintiff believed him as the defendant is a real Uncle of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that land too was given in the possession of the defendant and he remained in possession but on 07.08.2020 when the plaintiff called upon defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed he gave threatening that