1 2026:CGHC:1354-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 225 of 2024 • Rambachan Yadav S/o Late Ramkishore Yadav, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Bahera, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1. Vijay Gupta S/o Hariprasad Gupta, Aged About 66 Years, 2. Laxmi Gupta W/o Vijay Gupta, Aged About 61 Years, 3. Vibhore Gupta S/o Vijay Gupta, Aged About 38 Years, Respondents No. 1 to 3 Are R/o.2134, South Avenue, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Choubey Colony Raipur, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raipur, (C.G.) (Defendants) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Shri Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.4 : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 09/01/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2024 SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.01.09 17:31:14 +0530 2 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.8-A/2022, whereby, the plaintiff’s claim for Specific Performance of Contract, has been dismissed. Parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the trial Court. 2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant, on or about 13.06.2022, instituted a suit, claiming decree for the specific performance of contract, alleging inter alia, that the land bearing Khasra No. 223/1 admeasuring 1.260 hectare situated at village Bahera, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, was recorded in the name of one Laxmi Gupta, wife of Vijay Gupta, who on 30.10.2018 agreed to alienate the alleged land either in his favour or in the name suggested by him, for a consideration of Rs.32,38,000/- after receiving an earnest amount of Rs.16,15,000/-. It is pleaded further that in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sale, a part of the land in question, i.e. 0.591 hectare was sold by defendant No.2- Laxmi Gupta by executing a registered deed of sale dated 10.04.2019 (Ex. P-4) in favour of his wife, namely, Smt. Rekha Yadav, for a consideration of Rs.12,48,000/- and, the said land was accordingly, recorded in her name in the revenue papers. It is pleaded further that after the execution of the alleged sale, the defendant No.2 came and obtained the alleged agreement from him on the pretext to make an entry of said sale consideration of Rs.12,48.000/- on it, but instead has torn the same and, a month’s after it, sold a part of the suit land, i.e. 0.130 hectare to one Suresh Kumar Choudhary by executing a registered deed of sale dated 14.05.2019 (Ex.P-5), for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- and, thereafter, refused to execute 3 the registered deed of sale with regard to the rest of the suit land in his favour despite the issuance of notice dated 13.03.2020, which compelled him to institute suit in the instant nature. 3) While denying the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement that neither they execute the alleged agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff, nor have received the earnest amount of Rs.16,15,000/-, as alleged by him and, in fact, the plaintiff being familiar with the defendant No.1- Vijay Gupta had taken loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from him on different dates and has repaid the part of it, i.e. Rs.16,15,000/- in his Bank Account. 4) The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the parities, arrived at a conclusion that since the plaintiff has failed to establish the execution of the alleged agreement to sale in his favour on 30.10.2018, therefore, he is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance of contract and, in consequence, his claim was dismissed and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the finding recorded by the trial court holding that no agreement as such was executed on 30.10.2018 by defendant No.1- Vijay Gupta, while acting as a power of attorney holder of his wife, namely, Laxmi Gupta, the defendant No.2, in his favour, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record and, thereby, erred in refusing to grant him the decree for specific performance of contract, based upon the alleged agreement to sale, dated 30.10.2018. 4 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the trial court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 8) A suit for specific performance of contract was instituted by the plaintiff on the promise that an agreement to sale was executed in his favour on 30.10.2018 by the defendant No.1- Vijay Gupta, while acting as a power of attorney holder of his wife with regard to the land in question, i.e., Khasra No.223/1 admeasuring 1.260 hectare, owned by her, situated at village Bahera, Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara, for a consideration of Rs.32,38,000/- upon receiving the earnest amount of Rs.16,15,000/- from him. 9) In order to establish the alleged fact that the alleged agreement to sale was executed on 30.10.2018, the burden was heavily upon the plaintiff to prove the same. However, from perusal of the record, it would show that the plaintiff has failed to prove the same, as when the first registered deed of sale (Ex.P-4) was executed on 10.04.2019 by the defendant No.2 in favour of his wife- Smt Rekha Yadav, no endorsement as such was made therein that it was executed in pursuance to the alleged agreement, nor the same was found to be reflected, when the subsequent sale (Ex.P-5) was made on 14.05.2019 by the defendant No.2 in favour of said Suresh Kumar Choudhary with regard to the part of the land in question, i.e. 0.130 hectare. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led 5 by the plaintiff in order to establish the execution of the alleged agreement, except of his bald and vague statement. 10) In such circumstances, the trial court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in holding that no agreement as such was executed on 30.10.2018, as alleged by the plaintiff, while dismissing his claim, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 11) The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge sunita