1 2025:CGHC:15776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 273 of 2024 1 - Smt. Ayesha Bibi W/o Late Rojodin Aged About 65 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mustak S/o Late Rojodin Ansari Aged About 50 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Intaaf Ansari Mustak S/o Late Rojodin Ansari Aged About 48 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ishaaq Ansari Mustak S/o Late Rojodin Ansari Aged About 45 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Islam Ansari Mustak S/o Late Rojodin Ansari Aged About 40 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Salim Ansari Mustak S/o Late Rojodin Ansari Aged About 38 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Saabir Ansari Mustak S/o Late Rojodin Ansari Aged About 28 Years Caste Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.09 13:07:30 +0530 2 - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Mohd Sahim S/o Wali Aged About 50 Years W/o Late Mohammad, Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Defendants) 2 - Jasimuddin Aged About 40 Years, Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Ranpur Khurud, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondents/Defendants For appellants : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent no. 1 : None. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Judgment on Board 03/04/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27-6-2023 passed by the learned 2nd Upper District Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 78A/2019, upholding the judgment and decree dated 28-11-2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class II, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja in Civil Suit No. 225A/2013, whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed. 3 3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, as per memo of appeal and impugned orders, defendant No. 1 Mohd. Sahim was owner of land bearing Khasra No. 96/33 area 0.012 hectare situated at village Ranpurkhurd, Tahsil Ambikapur and a Kachcha house built on it (henceforth, referred to as ‘suit property’). He had executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff to sell the suit property on 12-3- 2007 for sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and has also obtained earnest money Rs. 30,000/- from plaintiff, but he did not execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, rather defendant No. 1 sold suit property to defendant No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 26-2-2010. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaring the sale deed dated 26-2-2010 null and void and grant of permanent injunction. 4. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and denied the pleading of the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced by them, dismissed the civil suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by the 1st appellate Court. Hence, this appeal. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court shows that, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that any such agreement to sell was executed by the defendant No. 1 – Mohd. Sahim in favour of original plaintiff Rjodeen Ansari and payment of earnest money has also not been proved. Further when 4 specific question was posed to learned counsel for appellants/ plaintiffs as to whether, specific pleading was made by the plaintiff about readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and whether he has served any notice to defendant No. 1 for execution of registered sale deed, then he submits that, no such pleading has been made in this regard by the plaintiffs. On due consideration, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned 1st appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. No substantial question of law is found to be framed in instant second appeal. Hence, instant second appeal is dismissed at admission stage, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as 1st appellate Court. 7. In view of above, instant second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to cost(s). 8. Decree be drawn accordingly. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak