1 2025:CGHC:51451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 111 of 2015 1. Ashok Jayaswal And Anr. S/o Bishouha Jayaswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Rus, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandriya, District Kabirdham, Civil And Revenue District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1. Ramji S/o Pyarelal Satnami Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Pratappur, P.S. Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandriya, District Kabirdham, Civil & Revenue District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. SB:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgement on Board 15.10.2025 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.18A/2013 by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 which learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Kabirdham dismissed the suit of plaintiff/appellant for specific performance of contract. 2. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned trial Court erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract in its entirety. He contended that plaintiff in plaint has specifically pleaded that defendant No.1 entered into contract to sell the land, accordingly, sale deed was typed, it was signed by both parties along with witnesses and sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- was also paid. In the sale deed, value of land is mentioned as per government rate, however, sale consideration was of much more amount than the government rate prevailing in the area. When sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration, upon verification of documents, the Sub-Registrar pointed out some shortcoming and returned back the sale deed for removing shortcoming. Ten days elapsed in removal of shortcomings as pointed by the Sub-Registrar and thereafter when defendant No.1 was requested to come to the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of sale deed, he denied. Learned trial Court even after considering evidence of DW-1 of admitting his signature on Ex.P-1, recorded finding that plaintiff failed to prove his case that defendant no.1 without any reason has refused to appear in the office of Sub Registrar to execute sale deed. He 3 contended that witnesses to sale deed by name Derharam and Ramchandra, are examined and they have proved typing of sale deed, passing of sale consideration to owner of land of Rs.2,40,000/- and therefore, finding recorded by learned trial Court that plaintiff failed to prove his case is perverse to evidence available in record. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that relief claimed by plaintiff is against defendant No.1/ respondent No.1 herein. 4. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and perused record of trial Court. 5. Perusal of plaint would show that plaintiff in plaint has specifically pleaded that as defendant No.1 was in need of money to purchase land, he entered into contract to sell the land, subject matter of suit, for consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- in the month of 2013. No specific date has been mentioned in plaint about entering into contract of purchase of land. It is also pleaded that on 22.2.2013 drafting of sale deed was done by Document Writer in the campus of office of Sub- Registrar; document was signed, sale consideration was paid and oral possession of land was given. 6. Defendant No.1 in written statement has categorically denied the pleadings made in plaint. He denied that there was any contract of sale in the month of February 2013 between the 4 parties. No direction or observation is made by the Sub Registrar for getting corrected entries of Khasra Panchsala. It is pleaded that defendant No.1 went to Tahsil Office for some other work where he met the plaintiff who obtained papers saying that he will get his work done. He also stated that when the documents were placed in the office of Sub- Registrar, he informed correct fact to the Sub-Registrar upon which he also scolded the plaintiff and Document Writer. At that time, he came to know about wrong committed by plaintiff. 7. To prove pleadings made in plaint, plaintiff has examined as many as 04 witnesses i.e. plaintiff himself as PW-1, Itwari as PW-2, Ramchandra as PW-3 and Sajan R Dewangan, Document Writer, as PW-4 and exhibited seven documents. 8. Plaintiff (PW-1) in Para-8 of cross-examination has admitted that an agreement to sell was executed in the month of February 2013 for which he submitted documents along with plaint. Perusal of documents would show that no document of agreement to sell has been submitted and proved by plaintiff except for unregistered sale deed (Ex.P-1) drafted and signed by the parties. He also stated in Para-9 of cross- examination that agreement to sell was about 8-10 days prior to drafting of unregistered sale deed and further stated that written document in this regard also submitted and shown his 5 unwillingness if it is not forming part of record. In para-10 he admitted that huge amount of Rs.2,40,000/- is not readily available in the house. He has not withdrawn the amount from his bank account but managed from some other person. He also admitted that he has not mentioned in the plaint and affidavit the name of person from whom he has borrowed money and he is stating this fact for the first time in the Court. 9. Evidence of Itwari (PW-2) appears to be not reliable. In Para- 2, he has stated that before putting his thumb impression on the documents, it was read over to him, however, subsequently he stated that he does not remember whether document was read over to him or not. In Para-5 he admitted that defendant No.1 has purchased the disputed land from him for a sale consideration of Rs.8,000/-. 10. Evidence of Ramchandra (PW-3) is also shaky. This witness in Para-9 though denied the suggestion that plaintiff is not in a position to pay amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, however, he stated that he had arranged money by selling his agricultural land. This is not the case of plaintiff that he made arrangement of sale consideration by disposing of his immovable property but in his evidence he stated that he borrowed money. However, no such pleading is there in the plaint nor any person is named specifically from whom plaintiff borrowed money or said person is produced as witness before trial Court. 6 11. Sajan R Dewangan (PW-4) has denied the payment of sale consideration in his presence, whereas plaintiff has stated that sale consideration was paid in presence of two witnesses and Document Writer. In view of evidence of plaintiff, the evidence of Document Writer appears to be not correct. This witness has further stated that proceeding of payment of money was being done by sitting on side of him. He has not made specific statement about transfer of money from purchaser to seller and therefore, his evidence to that extent cannot be accepted. 12. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence came to conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove the plea of entering into agreement to sell between him and defendant, and refusal of defendant No.1 thereafter purposefully for some other reason. Learned trial Court has taken note of the contents of Ex.P-8, which is reply to notice given on behalf of defendants to plaintiff through an advocate wherein he specifically denied entering into contract for sale of land in question and other facts as pleaded in notice. In additional pleadings, it is pleaded that defendant No.1 has consented for sale of his land admeasuring five decimal for Rs.1,50,000/- on the request of plaintiff. Accordingly, it was agreed upon stating that amount would be paid at the time of registration of sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. 7 Defendant No.1 at the time of registry of sale deed, upon query, made submission before the Sub-Registrar that he intended to sell five decimal land for Rs.1,50,000/-, whereupon he was informed that sale deed is for sale of 50 decimal of land. 13. From the evidence, as discussed above, it is appearing that plaintiff could not able to prove as to how and from where the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- has been brought and paid to defendant No.1. There is no reliable evidence available in this regard. More so, when it is stated that amount has been paid in presence of Document Writer (PW-4), who has not made such statement in specific terms. Burden of proof of entering into agreement for sale of land forming part of unregistered sale deed and other pleadings made in plaint including payment of Rs.2,40,000/- in cash to defendant No.1 was upon plaintiff in which he utterly failed as he could not able to produce admissible evidence in this regard. Learned trial Court has also recorded that it could not be proved that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid in front of Sub-Registrar at the time of producing typed sale deed before it for registration. 8 14. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned passed by learned trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant herein for specific performance of contract. 15. Consequently, the appeal being meritless is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-