RUCHI CHANDRAKAR Vs. VISHNU KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 13/12/2012 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.6A/2011, whereby the suit for specific performance was dismissed.

(2.) The suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs Ruchi Chandrkar, Widow of Rajendra Kumar Chandrakar and minor son Parth Chandrakar through their power of attorney holder Raghvendra Chandrakar. In the plaint it was contended that the defendant owns the land bearing Khasra No.244/2, situated at Hirapur, R.I. Circle Raipur. The defendants agreed to sell 2.25 acres out of 2.283 Hectares at the rate of Rs.4,75,000.00 per acre. It was further stated that on 01/04/2002 Rajendra Chandrakar (since deceased) entered into an agreement with the defendants No.1 to 8 and received an amount of Rs.51,000.00 as an earnest money. The plaint further states that after 01/04/2002 another sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 was paid on 22/10/2002 and subsequently on 09/06/2004 an amount of Rs.20,000.00 was paid. Thereby, total amount of Rs.2,21,000.00 was paid towards sale consideration. Rajendra Chandrakar died on 10/12/2006, therefore, the plaintiff wife and minor son stepped into the shoes of Late Rajendra Chandrakar. In the plaint it has also been averred that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to purchase the suit land and on 23/06/2007 when the plaintiffs pressed for execution of sale deed, instead of execution of sale deed another agreement dtd. 23/06/2007 was executed and out of the suit property, possession of one acre of land was given to the plaintiffs which was shown in the revenue maps. Subsequent thereto when the defendant did not execute the sale deed, a legal notice was served on 11/02/2008 which was followed by subsequent notice of 14/03/2008. Thereafter, paper publication was made and eventually the suit was filed for specific performance of the suit land.

(3.) The defendants contended that on 01/04/2002 an agreement was executed but within one year after payment of the remaining sum, the sale deed was to be executed. It was further stated that the defendants No.2 to 8 had never appointed Vishnu Singh as their power of attorney holder, therefore, on the subsequent dates i.e. on 22/10/2002 and 09/06/2004 if he has accepted cash amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 and Rs.20,000.00, it would not be binding upon the defendants No.2 to 8. Defendants also stated that they have never came in touch with the plaintiffs or the purchaser and so far as the document which purport to show the possession of one acre was given on 23/06/2007 to the purchaser Rajendra Chandrakar is sham and bogus as Rajendra Chandrakar was dead on 10/12/2006. The defendants also stated that the suit was belated and barred by time and they prayed for dismissal of the suit.