-1- 2025:CGHC:48538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 353 of 2019 1 - Ramayan (Dead) Through LRs: 1(A). Smt. Dhanabai W/o Late Ramayan @ Ramayan Lal Aged About 36 Years 1(B). Sunil Kumar S/o Late Ramayan @ Ramayan Lal Aged About 22 Years 1(C). Ku. Durga D/o Late Ramayan @ Ramayan Lal Aged About 20 Years 1(D). Ku. Subhadra D/o Late Ramayan @ Ramayan Lal Aged About 15 Years 1(E). Ku. Durgeshwari D/o Late Ramayan @ Ramayan Lal Aged About 8 Years 1(F). Ku. Maheshwari D/o Late Ramayan @ Ramayan Lal Aged About 8 Years 2 - Baldev S/o Late Chhedilal Aged About 42 Years 3 - Kailash S/o Late Chhedilal Aged About 40 Years 4 - Kishore S/o Late Chhedilal Aged About 38 Years 5 - Deepak S/o Malikram Aged About 25 Years 6 - Bhim S/o Malikram Aged About 23 Years 7 - Arjun S/o Malikram Aged About 21 Years 8 - Karan S/o Malikram Aged About 19 Years All are by caste Bareth, R/o Village Bhilmi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Appellants are Legal Heirs of deceased Chhedilal died on 11.06.2019) ... Appellant (s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.15 10:14:37 +0530 -2- versus 1 - Jai Prakash S/o Ramkhilawan Aged About 30 Years 2 - Manoj Kumar S/o Ramkhilawan Aged About 27 Years 3 - Geeta Bai Wd/o Ramkhilawan Suryavanshi Aged About 40 Years All are R/o Village Bhilmi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ranjeeta Bai Suryavanshi D/o Late Ramkhilawan Suryavanshi W/o Ajay Suryavanshi R/o Village Bhilmi, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Pritibai D/o Late Ramkhilawan W/o Bahorik Suryavanshi R/o Bijour, Post Bahtarai, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondents No 1 To 5 are Legal Heirs Of Deceased Ramkhilawan) 6 - Shatruhan Lal Satnami S/o Late Nakchhed Prasad Satnami Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bhilmi, Post Khaira Daganiya, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 4 : Mr. Mohd. Waquar Rizvi, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 22/09/2025 1. This appeal is filed by appellant- plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 06.10.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. A/769/2012 by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby learned trial Court dismissed plaintiff’s suit for getting the disputed land registered in favour of plaintiff, to get sale deed executed by defendant dated 03.12.2015 in favour of defendant No.6 and in alternate, to get the agreed amount (vide Ex.P-1) of Rs.1,26,952/- along -3- with interest at the rate of 12 %. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that original plaintiff Chhedilal (since dead) filed a civil suit seeking following reliefs: “A. Decree be granted to execute the registration of suit land in favour of plaintiff. B. Cost of suit. C. Such other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit may be granted. D. As the land was sold during pendency of suit, sale deed dated 03.12.2015 be declared null and void and the sold land be registered in favour of plaintiff. in alternate In case suit land is not registered in favour of plaintiff, contract amount along with 12% interest per annum from the date of contract till the date of payment of amount should be given to plaintiff from the defendants." on the ground that original defendant Ramkhilawan came to him requesting him to extend loan in lieu of land bearing kh. no.1440 admeasuring 0.91 acres situated at village Bhilmi, P.H. No.3. Plaintiff, considering the loan amount and value of land has assessed the value of land as Rs.1,26,952/- and had given loan of said amount to original defendant. Transaction of loan was also written down and agreement of sale Ex.P-1 was executed between the parties on 12.09.2011. After passing of some time, when plaintiff asked to execute the sale deed, it was refuted nor the amount taken on loan was returned back and, therefore, plaintiff has filed suit initially for getting the sale deed executed pursuant to agreement to sell Ex.P-1 and when during pendency of suit, -4- part of land (0.32 acres out of 0.91 acres) was sold out to third person i.e. defendant No.6, relief was amended of declaring the sale deed dated 03.12.2015 to be null and void and in alternate, refund of amount as mentioned in agreement Ex.P-1. 3. 3. Defendant submitted written statement denying the facts pleaded in the plaint and it was further pleaded that hand-loan Rs.32,000/- was given by the plaintiff in the year 2009 and after lapse of about two years, under pressure, agreement to sell was got executed by plaintiff after adding interest on principal amount of Rs.32,000/-. This agreement was executed under pressure and not with freewill. It is also pleaded that after getting agreement to sell executed, amount of Rs.1 lakh was returned back to plaintiff. However, at that time, document Ex.P-1 was not returned back to defendant on the ground that entire amount has not been paid. Thereafter, defendant No.1 along with remaining amount also approached to plaintiff, however, he refused to accept balance amount and return of agreement to sell. He pressurized to get sale deed executed of the land as mentioned in Ex.P-1. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings made by respective parties has formulated as many as five issues for consideration and after conclusion of trial, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by respective parties, dismissed the suit by impugned judgment and decree holding that plaintiff failed to prove execution of agreement to sell Ex.P-1 in accordance with law. Alternate relief of refund of amount was also rejected on the ground that plaintiff failed to prove loan amount of Rs.1,26,952/- handed over to defendant. -5- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff would submit that learned trial Court erred in dismissing the entire claim without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in its entirety and true prospective. He contended that execution of agreement Ex.P-1 is not disputed by defendant and further the independent witness examined by plaintiff as PW2 has also proved the execution of document Ex.P-1. Learned trial Court overlooking the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also DW1 erred in disbelieving the execution of Ex.P-1 and recording a finding that execution of Ex.P-1 is not proved. He also contended that agreement to sell of land, subject matter of civil suit, is clearly mentioned in Ex.P-1. By way of amendment plaintiff has pleaded that part of land (0.32 acres out of 0.91 acres), subject matter of suit, was sold by legal representative of original defendant during pendency of suit to defendant No.6 for which copy of sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.6 was also produced. However, learned trial Court erred in not even passing judgment and decree granting alternate relief of refund of loan amount. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 4/defendants would submit that learned trial Court upon appreciation of pleadings, evidence brought on record of respective parties has correctly held that plaintiff failed to prove valid execution of Ex.P-1. He contended that there is clear pleading made in written statement and there is also clear statement of witnesses that loan was extended in favour of defendant of Rs.32,000/- in the year 2009 but document Ex.P-1 agreement to sell was executed after two years only to mount pressure of getting sale deed executed. He contended that amount as mentioned in Ex.P-1 is inclusive of interest on principal amount of Rs.32,000/-. He contended that -6- defendant has clearly stated that in written statement that Rs.1 lakh has already been paid to plaintiff after execution of document Ex.P-1 which is against the principal loan amount of Rs.32,000/-. He also contended that there is specific pleading in written statement that when the document was not returned, they have also approached the plaintiff with balance amount of Rs.26,952/- for getting back executed document Ex.P-1, however, balance amount was not accepted nor document Ex.P-1 was returned but pressure was mounted on original defendant to get sale deed executed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of trial Court. 8. On perusal of the sale agreement executed by original defendant - Ramkhilavan in favour of the plaintiff, Ex P-1, it is reflecting that the original defendant Ramkhilavan, on the ground of his financial need, taken Rs. 1,26,952/- as loan from original plaintiff- Chhedilal on 12/09/2011 with the stipulated conditions mentioned therein that if the loan amount is not paid till 30.05.2012, plaintiff will have the right to register the suit land in his name. Agreement (Ex.P-1) prima facie appears to be a written transaction in lieu of a hand-loan and not a contract for sale of the suit land. 9. Plaintiff Chhedilal was examined as PW-1. In his evidence he himself admitted in paragraph 11 of his cross-examination that Ramkhilavan had borrowed Rs.32,000/- from him in the month of March 2009, during the wedding season. He had signed a document regarding that amount. This witness also admitted that Ramkhilavan had failed to repay the loan amount for two years for which he executed agreement Ex.P-1. This -7- witness also admitted in paragraph 14 of his cross-examination that on 24/05/2012, Ramkhilavan came to his house with his sons- Jaiprakash, Pardeshi, Umed, and Salik Ram, and gave him Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. Ramayan Lal Rajak (PW-3), son of plaintiff, has admitted in para-7 of the cross-examination that in the year 2009, his father Chhedilal had given a loan to Ramkhilavan, for which agreement was executed on 12/09/2011. This witness also admitted that the money transaction had already taken place earlier, written agreement of which was executed on 12/09/2011. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, the witness also admitted that Ramkhilavan had given his father one lakh rupees. Although plaintiff Chhedilal (PW-1) in paragraph 14 of his cross-examination and witness Ramayan Lal Rajak (PW-3) in paragraph- 8 of cross-examination sated that amount of Rs. 1 lakh was returned by defendant Ramkhilavan in respect of the loan taken by him in respect of land situated at Barchhawar, defendant witness Jai Prakash (PW-1) has denied the suggestion of plaintiff in paragraph 14 of the cross-examination that his father Ramkhilavan had also taken a loan from Chhedilal in the year 2009 by mortgaging the land situated at Barchhakhar. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff has not made any averment in the plaint regarding repayment of one lakh rupees borrowed by the original defendant Ramkhilavan in connection with the land situated at Barchhakhar. In absence of a clear averment made in the plaint, evidence given by plaintiff Chhedilal (PW-1) and his son Ramayan Lal Rajak (PW-3) is not admissible in evidence. Though Jaiprakash (DW1) has admitted in para-17 of the cross- examination that no complaint was made to competent authority about the plaintiff getting executed the agreement Ex P-1 in respect of -8- Rs. 1,26,952/- instead of Rs. 32,000/- and also that no Panchayat was held, but on this ground alone the evidence of the defendant cannot be considered unreliable. Defendant adduced better evidence than the plaintiff. Therefore, the preponderance of probability is in favor of the defendants, not the plaintiff. It has not been proved that the original defendant Ramkhilavan received a loan of Rs.1,26,952/- from the plaintiff on 12/09/2011 and executed an agreement to sell the suit land in the event of his not returning the amount by 30/05/2012. 11. In a civil suit, burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff to establish the facts supporting his claim, as he is the party asserting the liability of defendant. It is burden upon the plaintiff to prove existence of the facts by convincing evidence. 12. From close scrutiny of evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that plaintiff failed to prove that the original defendant Ramkhilavan entered into a contract to sell the disputed land and received an advance of Rs. 1,26,952/- from the plaintiff and executed agreement (Ex.P-1). In such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree in his favour directing enforcement of agreement Ex.P-1. Although in alternate, plaintiff has also sought relief of getting back the amount of Rs.1,26,952/- along with interest paid to the original defendant Ramkhilavan on 12/09/2011, but as this Court has not found it proved that the original defendant Ramkhilavan had taken Rs.1,26,952/- as loan from the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for the said alternative relief also. 13. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The First Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. -9- 14. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen