1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

F.A. No. 250 of 2018

Reserved on 23.06.2021

Pronounced on 30.06.2021

• Sardar Satpal Singh S/o Late Vidyal Singh, Aged About 62 Years

R/o Church Road, Kedarpur, Nagar Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Saroj Shukla W/o Late Jainath Shukla, Aged About 75 Years

R/o Anand Nagar Raipur, Post Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

(Defendants),

2. Shri Sachin Dev Shukla, S/o Late Jainath Shukla, Aged About 51

Years R/o Anand Nagar Raipur, Post Raipur, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh. (Defendants),

3. Shri Jaidev Shukla, S/o Late Jainath Shukla, Aged About 48 Years

R/o Anand Nagar Raipur, Post Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

(Defendants),

---- Respondents

For Appellant:

Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents:

Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

CAV Judgment/Order

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 96 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC')

questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated

23.03.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.A34/2015, whereby the trial Court has

dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance of contract. The

parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description

before the trial Court.

2.

The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this

appeal are that the Plaintiff- Sardar Satpal Singh instituted a suit claiming

2

specific performance of contract by submitting inter alia that the

predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants, namely, Jainath Shukla, has

executed an agreement to sale dated 04.07.1987 in his favour agreeing to

alienate the land in question bearing Khasra No.1245 and 1246

admeasuring 0.03 acres and 0.40 acres respectively constructed with a

Kachcha house along with its badi (open space), which is situated at

Ambikapur, District Surguja for a consideration of Rs.55,001/- upon

receiving an earnest amount of Rs.5,000/- from him. According to the

Plaintiff, the rest of the sale consideration was to be paid within a period of

90 days, i.e., by 04.10.1987. It is pleaded further that since Late Jainath

used to stay out of Surguja district and was not in a position to travel

alone, therefore, he could not come in time to Ambikapur for collecting the

rest of the sale consideration. However, he informed him to remit the same

either by cash or by demand draft as per his convenience, and there will

be no time limit for the same. It is pleaded further that despite the payment

of entire sale consideration by demand drafts, which were issued with

effect from 12.10.1987 upto 11.10.2004, the registered deed of sale has

not been executed on one pretext or the other, and in the year 2011, he

came to know that the Defendant has not filed any application before the

Collector seeking permission for alienation of the land in question,

therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant

nature, instituted on 06.02.2012.

3.

While denying the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the Defendants

that since the Plaintiff has failed to deposit the rest of the sale

consideration within a period of 90 days as provided under the alleged

agreement to sale and, the suit instituted on 06.02.2012, much beyond the

3

prescribed period of limitation, is apparently barred by time. It is contended

further, while referring to the averments made in the earlier instituted suit,

being Civil Suit No.20-A/03 that the cause of action for institution of the suit

for specific performance of contract was available with the Plaintiff, but,

instead, he has chosen to claim for declaration of title on 01.10.2001,

therefore, the instant suit is barred by law and is liable to be dismissed.

4.

After considering the evidence led by the parties, it was held by the

trial Court that the Plaintiff was ne