KESHAR SINGH THAKUR Vs. MOTIRAM SONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/9/2018 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2011 whereby the appellant's suit for specific performance of agreement for purchase of immovable property was dismissed.

(2.) As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff entered into an agreement dtd. 1/2/2008 with Motiram Sonkar (since deceased) to purchase the lands bearing Khasra No. 389 and 1485/4, Patwari Circle No. 105 admeasuring 0.020 and 1.748 hectares situated at Bhatagaon, Raipur for a consideration of Rs.15.00 lakhs. According to the plaintiff, at the time of execution of the agreement, Rs.9.00 Lacs was given in cash to Motiram and Rs.1.00 Lakh was given by way of cheque and it was mutually agreed that after demarcation of land, the sale deed would be executed. It was further stated that in the meanwhile, certain demands were made for payment of additional amount that too agreed to be paid and thus an amount of Rs.4.00 Lacs was again paid to the daughter of defendant Motiram, namely, Dharmin Bai in two different modes i.e., Rs.3.90 lakhs in cash and Rs.10,000.00 by cheque and separate consent agreement letter was executed by Dharmin Bai. According to the plaintiff, despite considerable time has elapsed demarcation was not carried out, thereafter, the defendant was served a notice to execute the sale deed, but having not been done, suit was filed for specific performance of agreement.

(3.) The case of the defendant was that the agreement sought to be enforced is forged and fabricated and no agreement was executed for sale of the property. It was stated that Motiram was 76 years of age and he had never met or seen the plaintiff. It was further stated that the defendant is not the owner of the suit property and Khasra No. 1485/4 was the property of his daughter, namely Dharmin Bai according to the partition executed on 13/4/2005. Consequently, on the date of alleged agreement dtd. 1/2/2008, Motiram was not the exclusive owner, therefore, he is not entitled to get the agreement specifically enforced. It was further stated that agreement so executed bears the adhesive Stamp, as such, it could not be admissible in evidence and photographs of Motiram was affixed on Ex. P/1 subsequently, which would be evident from the seal as the photographs super-imposes the seal. It was further stated that no amount was paid by the plaintiff, as such, it would show ill-motive of the plaintiff, consequently, he is not entitled for any relief.