1 2025:CGHC:28567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 411 of 2022 1 - Sudhir Gupta S/o Late Shankarlal Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Chintak Press, Opposite To City Club Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (CG). 2 - Smt. Sneha Ramteke W/o Pankaj Ramteke Aged About 34 Years R/o C- Wing, Flat No. 404, Pyramid City (Wrongly Mentioned As Piramid City), 3- Besa Pipla Road, District Nagpur, Maharastra. 3 - Vijay Gupta S/o Late Rajesh Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Sudhir Gupta, In Front Of City Club, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Jyoti Gupta W/o Dinesh Gupta Aged About 59 Years R/o Civil Lines Gondia, District : Gondia, Maharashtra. 5 - Smt. Sibbo Gupta, W/o Krishan Kumar Gupta, Aged About 62 Years R/o Near Mata Mandir, Aamgaon, District Gondia, Maharashtra ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Shila Rani Arora W/o Late Kishanlal Arora Aged About 75 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg (CG). 2 - Naveen Arora S/o Late Kishanlal Arora Aged About 62 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vinod Arora, S/o Late Kishanlal Arora Aged About 59 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Kamal D/o Late Kishanlal Arora Aged About 68 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Sunita Arora D/o Late Kishanlal Arora Aged About 63 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Suraksha Arora D/o Late Kishanlal Arora Aged About 58 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg (CG). 7 - Sunil Kumar Arora S/o Kishanlal Arora Aged About 50 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar Gurudwara Station Road, Durg Tah. And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.07.01 11:10:01 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 27/06/2025 1 Heard. 2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Second Upper District Judge, Durg (CG) in Civil Appeal No.74A/2019 upholding the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Class-I to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-I, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No.02-A/2012, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by appellant/ original plaintiff -Shankarlal Gupta for specific performance of contract. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that one Upendranath Banerjee was original owner of the suit property situated at Sheet No.7, plot No.2/2 mentioned in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint. During the lifetime of Upendranath Banerjee, original plaintiff -Shankarlal Gupta was his tenant in suit property, subsequently, Upendranath Banerjee sold it to defendant No.1 -Smt. Shila Rani Arora (wife of Kishanlal Arora) vide registered sale deed dated 07.03.1983, despite change of title of the suit property, plaintiff remained tenant on it. He would further submit that, on 04.05.1987, on the basis of oral agreement, Kishanlal Arora/ his wife agreed to sell sold suit 3 property to original plaintiff -Shankarlal Gupta for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, out of which, Rs.20,000/- was paid to him through Cheque No.13152 dated 04.05.1987. Thereafter, plaintiff requested many times for execution of registered sale deed in his favour, which was not got done by Kishanlal Arora or his wife -Smt. Shila Rani Arora, therefore, plaintiff filed civil suit. Learned counsel further submitted that though there was no written document in respect of said agreement and transaction, but oral agreement can also be done for sale of any property. He would further submit that, despite repeated request, Kishanlal Aroara did not execute registered sale deed, therefore, legal notice dated 15.05.2002 served to his wife along with cheque of remaining sale consideration i.e. Rs.20,000/-, despite that, she did not execute registered sale deed. He further submits that original plaintiff - Shankarlal Gupta was in possession over the suit property prior to 1983 and after his death, his LRs are in possession, which supports their contention that oral sale agreement was made between original plaintiff and Smt. Shila Rani Arora, wife of Kishanlal Gupta, which also gets support from payment of cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- to him, despite that, learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court ignored that evidence and dismissed the civil suit filed by plaintiff, hence, he prays that this second appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 4 Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would support the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 The plaintiff has examined Shankarlal Gupta (himself), Shankarlal Tamrakar (PW-2) and Sudhir Gupta (PW-3) in support of his case, who have 4 also stated that the said oral agreement for sale of suit property was made between wife of Kishanlal Arora and Shankarlal Gupta (original plaintiff) and Rs.20,000/- was paid through cheque as an advance amount, but except aforesaid evidence, no other clinching evidence was produced by plaintiff in support of his claim, even plaintiff has neither specifically pleaded nor deposed that after said oral agreement dated 04.05.1987, no rent of the suit property was paid to the defendant. Further, alleged oral agreement was made on 04.05.1987, whereas legal notice was served to Smt. Shila Rani Arora for specific performance of contract on 13.07.2002 i.e. after 15 years from the date of alleged oral agreement. This inordinate delay also goes against plaintiff’s claim, because if any such agreement would have made out between the parties, then as vigilant purchaser, plaintiff ought to have served legal notice after few months/years from the said date of agreement. 7 Perusal of judgment of both the Courts below shows that the issue has been dealt by both the Courts below in detail, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment, as such, no substantial question of law is found to be framed in this appeal, hence, the second appeal is dismissed at motion stage. 8 The parties to bear their own cost. 9 The decree be drawn accordingly. 10 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar