Order on Board

23.06.2022

1. Heard on admission.

2. Since the issues involved in the aforesaid Second Appels are identical;

therefore, they are heard anologous and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. This Second Appeals under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, have been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2014 passed by District Judge, Balod District Balod (CG) in Civil Appeal No. 39-A/2013 affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2012 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Gundardehi in Civil Suit No.

118-A /2011 for declaration, permanent injunction.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status shown in the Civil suit No. 118-A /2011 before the trial Court.

5. The relevant facts leading to the filing of second appeal, briefly, are that the plaintiff has filed the civil suit before learned Civil Judge Class –II contending that defendant No.1 and 2 belonged to Halva caste which is Schedule Tribe Community as defined in the Sr. No.17 of the Schedule issued under Constitution (Schedule Tribes) order 1950 and title holder of the suit property situated at village Chicha, P.H. No. 7, Revenue Circle Arjunda, Tahsil Gundardehi, District Durg, khasra No. 341/1, area 0.12, khasra no. 946/2, area 0.07, khasra no. 1076/3, area 0.16, total khasra no. 3, total area 0.35 RA. The defendant no. 1 and 2 have executed an agreement to sell the suit property in presence of the witnesses namely Bhoduram Sahu and Maniram, who were residents of village Chicha. The agreement was executed on 12.03.1999 and Rs. 3000/- was paid to the defendants No. 1 and 2 as advance in presence of the witnesses. It has been further contended that defendant No. 1 and 2 belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community, therefore, before execution of sale deed, permission of Collector is required as per the provisions of Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code and the same was obtained with a condition that the defendant will purchase similar property and their registration will be executed simultaneously. It has also been contended that plaintiff has paid Rs. 3,000/- on 12.03.199, Rs. 1000/- on 17.10.2001 and Rs. 2000/- on 30.09.2003 thus total Rs. 6000/- to defendants and remaining amount Rs. 18,000/- is payable at the time of registration of sale deed and the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs. Despite permission sought from the Collector by the plaintiff, the respondents were avoiding the execution of the sale deed, therefore, the plaintiffs have sent legal notice through his counsel on 04.05.2005, which was received by them. It has been further contended that since the plaintiff is in possession of the property and were doing agricultural work but the defendant No. 1 and 2 have not made any attempt to execute the sale deed despite issuance of notice, as such, the plaintiff has filed suit claiming following relief.

.

v ;g fd izfroknh dza +&01 ls 02 rd dks okfnuh ds uke xzke phpk i +g +u +&7 jk +fu e+ + vtqZUnk rg + xq.Mjnsgh ftyk nqxZ fLFkr [kljk ] jdck& 0 +12 ] [kljk ua +& ] jdck&0 +07 uacj&341@1 946@2 [kljk Uka +& ] jdck&0 +16] dqy [kljk ua +&3 dqy jdck&0

1076@3 +35 vkjs dkLrdkjh Hkwfe dh jftLVªh iath;u fu"iknu dh ?kks"k.kk vkns'k ,oa fMdzh vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkos bUdkj djus ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj jftLVªh iath;u fu"iknu dh ?kks"k.kk vkns'k ,oa fMdzh ikfjr gks A c + ;g fd izfroknh dza +&01 ls 02rd okfnuh dks okn xzLr Hkwfe bdjkjukek fnukad 12 +03 +1999ls dCtk esa fn;k gS okfnuh dl dCtk gS 'kkafr iwoZd dCtk esa gksdj dkLr dj jgs gS ftls csn[ky ladzkar djus ls jksdk tkos A l. ;g fd izfroknh dza +&01 ls 02 rd okn xzLr Hkwfe dh bdjkjukek] fcdzh] ca/kd] _.k izkIr djus laO;ogkj djus ls jksdk tkos A n. ;g fd okfnuh dks izfroknh dza +&01 ls 02 rd okn O;; rFkk vU; vuqrks"k ekuuh; U;k;ky; vkns'kkuqlkj fnyk;h tkus dh vkns'k iznku gks A

6. The defendant No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement contending that Collector, Durg has granted conditional permission on 23.10.2001