Order on Board

01.09.2023 This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) has been fled being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 3-A/2007 passed by the Court of Seventh Additional District Judge, Raipur, CG. By the impugned judgment and decree the suit fled by the appellant / plaintif for specifc performance of contract was dismissed. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their respective position before the trial Court.

2. Facts of the case in brief is that plaintif fled a suit for specifc performance of agreement perpetually executed by and between the plaintif and the defendant No. 1 in respect of suit property comprised piece of Khasra No. 33/7 area 0.086 hectare and Khasra No. 320/3 area 0.543 hectare situated at P.H. No. 72/15 village Ramchandi Baronda, R.I. Circle Mandir Hasod, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, CG. (Agriculture Land).

3. As per pleading of the plaint the defendant No. 1 contacted the plaintif for sale of the suit property for the purposes of medical treatment of his ailing son. In view of that agreement to sale dated 25.01.2002 was executed and the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1,56,000/- was received by defendant No. 1. The suit property was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and other persons in joint name therefore, since there was no division, the sale deed was not executed. However, the possession of the said land was handed over to the plaintif. Thereafter, it is further pleaded that the defendant No. 1 avoided to execute the sale deed whereas the plaintif always ready and willing to execute the sale deed.

4. It was further pleaded that in the year 2002 a ban was imposed by the Government of Chhattisgarh for sale of any property in the district Raipur therefore, the registration of the sale deed could not take place. For execution of the sale deed defendant No. 1 did not take any steps and even after the ban on registration of the sale deed was lifted, the defendant No. 1 did not execute the sale deed. The plaintif issued a legal notice dated 31.03.2004 to the defendant No. 1, it was received by him on 02.04.2004. Despite of that the execution and registration of the sale deed was not performed by the defendant No. 1, therefore, the suit for specifc performance was fled. The defendant No. 1 fled a written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. It was categorically denied that no such agreement of sale dated 25.01.2002 was executed in favour of the plaintif. It was further pleaded that on the date of said agreement, the defendant No. 1 was not the title holder of the suit property. Acceptance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,56,000/- was also denied by the defendant No. 1 and also that the possession was ever handed over the plaintif. The signature on the agreement to sale was also denied by him and it was pleaded that by order dated 16.02.2004 passed in revenue case No. 1-A/27 year 2003-04, he became the title holder of the suit property, prior to 16.02.2004 the defendant’s was not in possession of the suit property and sale agreement is forged and therefore, the suit may be dismissed. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as four issues. Plaintif and defendant in order to prove their pleadings, examined witnesses before the learned trial Court. After considering the evidence, material, documents placed before it, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintif vide impugned judgment and decree.

5. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintif vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has committed a manifest error of law and fact in dismissing the suit of the plaintif whereas from the evidence brought before it, the execution of the sale agreement has been proved. He further submits that the learned trial Court fell in error in holding that the signature on the sale agreement is not of defendant No. 1 merely on the basis o