1 / 8 2025:CGHC:61962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 24.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on 22.12.2025 Judgment Uploaded on 22.12.2025 FA No. 1 of 2017 Chuman Sahu S/o Dhumra Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation Cultivation, R/o Village Lendhara (Chhote) P.S. And Tehsil Sarangarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant No.1 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Chheduram Shau, R/o Village Lendhara (Chhote) P.S. And Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...............Plaintiff 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...........Defendant No.2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Defendant : Mr. S.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No.1/Plaintiff : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Judgment Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.22 14:54:47 +0530 2 / 8 1. Appellant/defendant No.1 has filed this appeal challenging legality and sustainability of judgment and decree dated 15.09.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 whereby learned trial Court has allowed Civil Suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff in part. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit under heading- "suit for specific performance of contract", pleading therein that defendant No.1/appellant herein was having a house and land at Village- Lendhra (Chhote), Tahsil- Sarangarh, District – Raigarh. House contains of two rooms, one kitchen and one verandah. Appellant /defendant No.1 when came in need of money had taken hand loan of Rs.2,21,000/- from plaintiff/respondent No.1 on 21.07.2014 in cash with commitment that loan will be returned back within three months. At that time, he also entered into an agreement and in the agreement, it was pleaded that if the loan amount as obtained by him is not returned, plaintiff will be entitled to file proceedings before the Court of competent jurisdiction for refund of amount and in failure to return the amount can get possession of the house subject matter of agreement by getting sale deed executed. Document dated 21.07.2014 was executed in front of witnesses. When even after several demands made by plaintiff, amount was not returned back, legal notice was sent through his Advocate on 13.04.2015 which was received by defendant No.1 on 15.04.2015. Thereafter civil suit was filed with a prayer that plaintiff be provided Rs.2,21,000/- from defendant after recovering it from him or in alternate, to get the registered sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff of the house subject matter of suit situated at Village- Lendhra. It was further prayed 3 / 8 that possession of the suit house be also provided after execution of sale deed. 3. Defendant submitted written statement to the pleadings made by plaintiff and had denied all adverse pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that in the house situated at Village- Lendhra (Chhote), defendant No.1 resides along with his other brothers separately. He had denied of obtaining hand loan of Rs.2,21,000/- from plaintiff and has also denied the alleged commitment of returning amount after three months. Agreement is stated to be forged and fabricated. 4. Learned trial Court based on pleadings made by respective parties had formulated as many as five issues for consideration and after conclusion of trial had allowed the suit in part granting decree of refund of money of Rs.2,21,000/- in favour of plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6%. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.1 would submit that learned trial Court even after recording a finding that no contract has ever been effectuated in between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and therefore no relief in terms of performance of contract can be granted to plaintiff, grant of decree in favour of plaintiff is erroneous. He also contended that when execution of document is denied, it is for the plaintiff to prove signature of defendant on the document based on the opinion of handwriting expert . In absence of any such opinion, genuineness of Ex. P-1 is highly suspicious. Pleading and evidence brought in record by plaintiff did not satisfy the manner and proof of mortgage nor the title deed of mortgaged property. Learned trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that plaintiff proved the valid 4 / 8 execution of Ex.P-1. As such, finding recorded pursuant to issues No. 1 to 3 with regard to valid execution of document Ex.P-1 was illegal and perverse. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff opposed submission of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and would submit that even if the heading is with regard to “specific performance of contract”, however, in the plaint, there is specific prayer made by the plaintiff of refund of amount of Rs.2,21,000/- from defendant and, therefore, learned trial Court justified in passing the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of learned trial Court. 8. So as to appreciate submission of learned counsel for appellant/ defendant No.1, I have perused the plaint filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, perusal of which, would show that under heading of suit it is mentioned as "suit for specific performance of contract" value of suit as Rs.2,21,000/-. In the body of plaint, it is mentioned that defendant No.1 obtained loan from plaintiff with an assurance to return back the same within short time and an agreement in that regard was executed on 21.07.2014. Agreement is filed as Ex.P-1. Perusal of agreement would show that it relates to house situated at Deeh. It further mentions that against house situated at village- Lendhra, defendant No.1 obtained the amount of Rs.2,21,000/-. There is further pleading made in the agreement that the amount is to be returned within 3 months and if defendant tries to delay in making payment or avoid the same, plaintiff would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings/suit in Court of competent jurisdiction, to get sale deed registered in his favour by order of 5 / 8 the Court. Agreement is filed as Ex.P-1. Legal notice sent by plaintiff is filed as Ex.P-2. Plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 to prove the pleadings made in the plaint and one Bansi Sahu as PW2. Plaintiff in his examination- in-chief has stated about hand loan taken by defendant of Rs.2,21,000/-. Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was also written down in stamp paper. In cross-examination, this witness stood firm with the pleading with regard to advancing of loan to defendant No.1. This witness was cross-examined, however, nothing adverse has come in his evidence. He also stated that defendant is resident of same village and community as of plaintiff. He also called for panchayat which was convened after about one month from the date of request made by him. Bansi Sahu (PW2) also supported the case of plaintiff. He further stated that the village of which he is resident of is a small village and, therefore, almost all persons know each other. 9. Defendant No.1/appellant is examined as DW1. However, he denied all the evidence which was brought, but for execution of agreement Ex.P-1. He admits that his photograph is pasted on agreement, however, he denied his signature. In para-9 of his cross-examination, he admitted that though he stated that agreement is forged and fabricated, however, he has not made any report/complaint to concerned police station in this regard nor any proceedings is initiated against plaintiff but denied the mortgaging of house. Kushal Sahu is examined as DW2 . In his cross-examination, he admitted that defendant along with his brother is residing jointly in the said house which was the ancestral house in which defendant is also having his share. 6 / 8 From the evidence of this witness, it is appearing that he is not the witness to document Ex.P-1. 10. From aforementioned evidence available in record, it is appearing that plaintiff proved that defendant No.1 had taken hand loan from plaintiff. Document Ex.P-1 is also executed, however, he refused to return back the money mentioned therein. 11. So far as the main ground raised by learned counsel for appellant/defendant that from contents of document Ex.P-1 it does not appear that it is an agreement to sell and therefore direction of the Court to refund the amount to plaintiff of Rs.2,21,000/- is bad in law is concerned, true it is, in heading of plaint there is mention of "suit for specific performance of contract" however in relief clause there is specific prayer for recovery of amount of Rs.2,21,000/-. Grant of decree of specific performance is prayed in alternate, which is even otherwise a discretionary jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may either grant the decree for specific performance of contract and if there is further prayer of refund of money, learned trial Court may consider the second/ alternate relief of refund of amount and therefore in the opinion of this Court, judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court of refund the amount of agreement Ex.P-1 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Merely giving heading of suit will not be a decisive factor but the entire pleadings and relief sought is also to be looked into for considering the grant of relief to plaintiff in his suit. 12. The nature of document said to be executed between the parties and intention of the parties at the time of execution of document has to be culled 7 / 8 out from the recital of the document i.e. agreement in this case. Minute reading of the agreement Ex.P-1 would show that, it primarily mentions of taking advance of Rs.2,21,000/- by defendant from plaintiff with an understanding to return it back within three months (3 months). It also mentions that if the defendants try to avoid re-payment within period as agreed, the plaintiff will have right to recover it by filing suit before Court. He will be liable to for cost. In the event of non-repayment of money, the plaintiff can take possession of house (description of which is mentioned in the agreement), got it registered through Court. 13. The primary nature of document Ex.P-1 is an agreement to refund money obtained as loan. In pleading of plaint, such fact is mentioned and further main relief is for refund of money and alternate relief is of getting the sale deed executed. 14. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances of case, discussions made above, it is apparent that plaintiff proved its case that agreement was executed between two at the time of obtaining loan/help of Rs.2,21,000/- and the trial Court recording that house was possessed jointly by defendant along with his brother has chosen to grant other relief as prayed for in the suit of refund of loan amount against the loan obtained by defendant No.1, which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be erroneous. Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is on proper appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference. 8 / 8 15. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and hence, it is dismissed. 16. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen