2025:CGHC:41007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 164 of 2016 Lakhan Lal S/o Kejuram @ Bhojram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Junwani, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh .................Defendant No.2, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Agnuram Sahu And Another S/o Bharatram Sahu, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Mujgahan, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - Kejuram Sahu @ Bhojram Sahu S/o Late Ganesh Sahu, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Junwani, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas JUDGMENT ON BOARD 14.08.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 2 under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 7B/2015 (Kejuram Sahu @ Bhojram Sahu & another Vs. Aghanuram Sahu) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2014 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 03B/2007 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- from defendant with 6% interest from 24.09.2007. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.22 17:36:52 +0530 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 03B/2007 before the trial Court. 3. The instant Second Appeal has admitted for hearing on 20.04.2017 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the agreement to sale dated 13.08.1999 (Ex. P/1) was not fictitious document?” 4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments, are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit on 25.04.2001 for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- from defendant mainly contending that:- (A) On 13.08.1999 an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for purchase of land situated at Village- Junvani, Patwari Halka No. 40/4 Tahsil & District- Dhamtari, Khasra No. 448/4 area admeasuring 0.33 Hectare for Rs. 50,000/- which was in the name of defendant No. 1- Kejuram and according to the agreement, Rs. 35,000/- was received by the plaintiff from defendant No. 2 and the remaining amount was agreed to register the sale-deed within two months and the remaining amount is to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed. It is also case of the plaintiff that when the defendant had not performed his part of contract, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant through his counsel on 09.01.2001 but the same has not been replied which has necessitated the plaintiff to file civil suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 35,000 with 24% interest. 5. Defendants No. 1 & 2 have filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contended that:- (A) No agreement was executed between them regarding sale of the aforesaid land and denied that Rs. 35,000/- was received by them. It has also been contended that no transaction as alleged by the plaintiff was done between them. It has been further contended that on 13.08.1999 when the defendants have executed sale-deed with Banshi, Dharam, Ramesh & others for purchase of agriculture land at that time, the plaintiff fraudulently took signature of defendants on stamp paper and prepared a forged document. It has been further contended that the defendants have purchased land from Banshi & Dharam then there is no necessity of sale of the land and the stamp was not purchased by the defendant but by the plaintiff who was stamp vendor in Tahsil office. It has been further contended that plaintiff insulted and threatened the defendants to kill and also asked to give money forcibly, therefore, they have sent a notice to the plaintiff through their Advocate on 03.01.2001 and also lodged report before police station. It has been further contended that the defendants have neither given any consent nor agreement was executed between them and the plaintiff has committed fraud with them, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any money from them and would pray for dismissal of the suit. 6. Learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, has framed as many as five issues which are extracted below:- ^^1- D;k oknh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k fnukad 13-08-1999 dks [k-ua- 448@1 dk VqdM+k ¼u;k dz- 448@4½ jdck 0-82 ,dM+ dks fodz; djus dh iDdh ckr fd;k Fkk\ 2- D;k oknh us izfroknh dz- 02 dks mDr lkSnk dk c;kuk 35]000 :i;s ¼iSarhl gtkj :i;s½ vnk fd;k Fkk\ 3- D;k oknh] izfroknhx.k ls mDr lkSnk vuqlkj Hkwfe dk jftLVªh u djus ds dkj.k c;kuk jkf’k 35]000 :i;s ¼iSarhl gtkj :i;s½ okil ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- D;k oknh us izfroknh ls LVkEi isij ij /kks[ks ls gLrk{kj izkIr fd;k gS\ 5- lgk;rk ,oa O;;A** 7. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-1), plaintiff-Aghnuram (PW-2), Roopsingh Sahu (PW-3) & Ramesh Kumar Sahu (PW-4) and exhibited document namely agreement dated 13.08.1999 (Ex. P/1), registered notice (Ex. P/1(A)), postal receipt (Ex. P/2 & P/3), postal acknowledgment (Ex. P/4 & P/5), map (Ex. P/6), khasra panchshala (Ex. P/7), kishtabandi Khatauni (Ex. P/8) & registered notice (Ex. P/9). 8. The defendants to substantiate their case examined Lakhan Lal Sahu (DW-1) and exhibited reply to the notice dated 20.10.2014 along with postal acknowledgment. 9. Jeevanlal Sahu (PW-1) has been examined before the trial Court wherein he has supported case of the plaintiff and has stated on 13.08.1999 an agreement was executed regarding sale of 82 dismil of land by defendant-Lakhanlal to the plaintiff for Rs. 50,000/- for which plaintiff had given Rs. 35,000/- to defendant No. 2 in front of him and it was agreed to execution of sale-deed within two months. He has admitted that the agreement dated 13.08.1999 was typed by him in which he and one Sumran have signed as witnesses. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that money transaction was taken place between the parties on the date of execution of sale-deed but he is not aware about the amount of transaction. 10. Plaintiff- Aghnuram (PW-2) has been examined before the trial Court wherein he has stated that the property which he intends to purchase from the defendant is valued Rs. 50,000/- and on 13.08.1999, Rs. Page 5 of 8 35,000/- was given to Lakhan and it was agreed to register the sale- deed within two months but no documentation was done in this regard. 11. Defendant- Lakhan Lal Sahu (DW-1) has been examined before the trial Court wherein he has admitted his signature in the agreement (Ex. P/1). He has also stated that he has signed in the document after going through the contents of the document only. 12. The learned trial Court vide order dated 24.09.2007 decreed the suit exparte and against that the defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 20.11.2007 which was rejected on 03.08.2012 against that the defendant has preferred Misc. Appeal which was allowed and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law giving opportunity to Kejuram and Lakhanlal. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record vide its judgment and decree dated 12.12.2014 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and has recorded its finding that the defendant has not paid Rs. 35,000/- and no sale-deed was executed accordingly, decided Issue No. 1, 2 & 3 in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to refund the amount of Rs. 35,000/- with 6% interest from the date of passing of judgment and decree. 13. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2014, the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2016 affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred the instant Second Appeal before this Court under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. which has been admitted by this Court on 20.04.2017 by framing the substantial question of law as aforestated. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court is bad in law and contrary to the facts available on record. He would further submit that from perusal of paragraph 2 of the plaint averments, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff is unable to perform his specific part of contract, therefore, the ground on which decree has been passed is without any pleading, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are bad in law and would pray for setting aside the same by allowing the instant appeal. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust. Virudhunagar Vs. Chandran & others [(2017) 3 SCC 702]. He would further submit that the pleading was not made regarding shortage of fund in purchasing the property by the defendant still both the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff would submit that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by First Appellate Court are just and proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court. He would further submit that the suit was preferred only for recovery of the amount and no relief was sought regarding specific performance of contract, therefore, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. Discussion and finding on Substantial Question of Law 17. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that from perusal of paragraph 2 of the plaint averments, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff has not filed suit for specific performance of contract, therefore, the matter should have been placed on record to substantiate the requirement of specific performance of contract and in absence of such prayer, the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be considered, is being considered by this Court. 18. From the pleadings and submission made by the parties, it is quite vivid that the pleading which has been made by the plaintiff was regard to recover the amount not for performance of the agreement and no relief for that was sought, therefore, the pleading to the prayer has already been made by the plaintiff. As such, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that no pleadings have been made with regard to specific performance of contract, suit for recovery, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 19. So far as substantial question of law is concerned, it is quite vivid that the defendant in his cross-examination has admitted that he has put his signature on any document after going through the evidence, therefore, it cannot be said that by committing any fraud on stamp paper, his signature has been obtained. The defendant has not placed any such material on record to demonstrate that fraud has been committed with him. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the pleading was not made regarding shortage of fund in purchasing the property by the defendant. Thus, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant in case of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust. Virudhunagar (supra) is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as it is distinguishable. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts that the agreement has been executed and Rs. 35,000/- has been given to the defendant but the defendant has not acted upon the agreement, therefore, the suit for recovery, was very much maintainable. These findings do not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, the Substantial Question of Law is answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant. 20. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 21. The interim order passed by this Court on 12.01.2018 stands vacated. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun