2025:CGHC:27560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 29 of 2012 Kuleshwar Prasad Chaubey S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Chaubey, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Dhruwakari (wrongly mentioned as Ghuruwakari in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2011), Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. Saraswati Bai, W/o Shri Kedar Verma, R/o Dhuruwakari (wrongly mentioned as Ghuruwakari in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2011), Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address: Darripara Naila, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Government of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vikrant Pillai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1 : Ms. Minu Banerjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas JUDGMENT ON BOARD 25/06/2025 1. This First Appeal appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 133-A/2011 by which the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant No. 1 for specific performance of contract, has been dismissed. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.28 16:54:22 +0530 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 133-A/2011 which has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. 3. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averment are that (A) The plaintiff has filed a civil suit against respondent No. 1/defendant for specific performance of contract in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 187/6, 189/2 & 187/3 admeasuring 0.02, 0.45 & 0.47 acres respectively total 0.94 acres situated at Village- Dhuruwakari, Patwari Halka No. 43, R.N.M. & Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur mainly contending that husband of respondent No. 1/defendant namely Kedar Verma was salesman in Fair Price Shop under Co-operative Society in Village- Dhuruwakari. (B) In the year 2006, husband of the defendant was removed from service on account of defalcation of public money, consequently, their family was under problem. Defendant No. 1 used to discuss with the plaintiff about need of money to deposit the amount for which her husband was charge-sheeted, therefore, on 26.03.2007, an agreement was executed between them and Rs. 97,000/- was paid to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff. The defendant instead of execution of registered sale-deed started adopting delay tactics, therefore, the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant on 24.07.2008 for execution of sale-deed, but the defendant neither returned the amount nor executed the sale-deed which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a civil suit for specific performance of contract. 4. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and contended that no departmental enquiry is pending against defendant’s husband and also denied that her husband was removed from Government service due to defalcation in service. It has also been contended that for livelihood, the defendant was earning from Manihari business, as such, it was not required to sell the suit land. It has also been stated that no agreement was executed between the defendant and plaintiff and she has not received Rs. 97,000/- as sale consideration for selling the suit property. It has also been contended that the defendant has never gone to notary and she has not put her signature on the register and would pray for dismissal of the civil suit. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the pleadings of the parties, has framed as many as five issues. Issue Nos. 1 & 3 are necessary for deciding issue raised in this appeal, therefore, they are being reproduced below:- (i) Whether defendant No. 1 executed the sale-deed for Rs. 97,000/- for purchasing the suit land and received the full amount i.e. Rs. 97,000/- from the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract? 6. The plaintiff to substantiate his averments in the plaint has examined himself as (PW-1), Panchram Yadav (PW-2), Dinesh Singh (PW-3) and exhibited documents sale-deed dated 26.03.2007 (Ex. P-1), Registered notice with acknowledgment (Ex. P-2 & P-3), order dated 08.12.2009 passed by SDM Bilaspur (Ex. P-4), 22 Bindu Application (Ex. P-5), Kishtabandi Khatauni (Ex. P-6), Khasra Panchsala (Ex. P-7), B-1 Kishtabandi (Ex. P-8) & P-2 Khasra Panchsala (Ex. P-9). Page 4 of 7 7. The plaintiff examined himself, reiterated the stand taken by him in the plaint and filed an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned boundaries of the property. He has denied that he and his uncle namely Bhagwat Prasad owned 25 acres of land and also denied that they have one tractor & one Marshal jeep. He has admitted that in January, 2007, he had given Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant and the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 47,000/- was given by him to the defendant at the time of notary. He has also denied that they used to prepare forged document to grab the land of villagers. He has also stated that he has requested the plaintiff to execute the sale-deed but she refused to execute the same. 8. The defendant to substantiate her averments in the written statement has examined herself as (DW-1), Ramayan (DW-2), Kamoun Singh (DW-3) & Kedarnath Verma (DW-4) and exhibited documents namely reply to the plaintiff’s notice (Ex. D-1), certificate issued by Sarpanch (Ex. D-2), letter written to Superintendent of Police (Ex. D-3). 9. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material placed on record vide its judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and has recorded its finding that the said agreement was not executed for the suit property and in the stamp paper wherein the defendant was signed with regard to the grant of money by the plaintiff and the said stamp paper has been used as agreement and it has answered against the plaintiff regarding issue No. 1 & 3. Learned trial Court has also raised doubt over existence of the agreement executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and accordingly, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court suffers from perversity and illegality as the learned trial Court has failed to examine the evidence placed before it in its true perspective by not considering the true facts regarding ready and willingness to perform his part of contract and more so the defendant has not examined himself to rebut the same, therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn against defendant No. 1 and the pleadings of the plaintiff should have been accepted, as such, the finding recorded before the learned trial Court is illegal which is liable to be set aside and would pray for allowing the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/defendant opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is just and proper and based upon appreciation of facts and material on record, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray dismissal of the appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 13. From pleadings of the parties and material placed on record, the point emerged for determination of this Court is :- Point : Whether the finding recorded by the learned trial Court regarding execution of agreement is legal and justified and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract? Discussion and finding 14. The suit and appeal have been filed by the plaintiff claiming himself to be pauper and by contending that he has collected money from relatives but no witness to demonstrate this fact has been examined by the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is unable to establish that he is pauper and the amount has ben collected from his relatives, therefore, there is no material placed on record to prove that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. 15. Further the learned trial Court has raised doubt over the credibility of the agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and in the entire pleadings and evidence, there is no whisper about payment of Rs. 50,000/- to defendant No. 1 and the remaining amount is payable at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Learned trial Court while considering the evidence has also taken note of the fact that as per the agreement, the plaintiff should have prove that he has given Rs. 50,000/- to defendant No. 1 and Rs. 47,000/- has been given at the time of execution of agreement before the notary but the notary has not been examined before the trial Court to substantiate this pleading for the reasons best known to him, therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn against the plaintiff for not placing the best evidence available with him to prove regarding genuineness of the so called agreement executed between the parties. 16. The plaintiff is also unable to establish that when he has given amount to defendant No. 1 which is essential requirement of law to prove that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, therefore, it can be said that the entire sale consideration has been paid to defendant No. 1 but the defendant No. 1 has not executed the alleged agreement, therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff which warrants any interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun