SHIV SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil suit No.30-A/2016 whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, are that the respondent/defendants owned land bearing khasra No.142/2 and 142/4 admeasuring 0.105 hectare at Mouza Gondwara, Tahsil and District Raipur. The defendants entered into an agreement for sale on 5/3/2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.24.00 lacs; out of that an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs was paid by way of cheque and the remaining amount of Rs.19.00 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. According to the plaintiff, to secure the agreement, on different dates he gave different cheques to the defendant and as per the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed within six months from 5/3/2015 with a pre condition that before the land was put to sale, the demarcation would be carried out and thereafter, the sale deed would be executed. The plaintiff also pleaded that after receipt of the amount, possession of the land was given to him and he has constructed a boundary wall on that. Despite lapse of six months the defendant did not execute the sale deed, therefore, notices were exchanged and initially, according to the plaintiff, wrong khasra number was shown in the notice, which was subsequently corrected, but despite that the sale deed was not executed, therefore, the suit was filed. The plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed, therefore, the decree for specific performance be passed in his favour.

(3.) The defendants refuted the claim and it was stated that the plaintiff mainly dealing with the lands, as a land broker, therefore, he himself purchased the land. According to the defendant, as per sale agreement dtd. 5/3/2015 the entire sale consideration should have been paid, but the plaintiff did not pay the same. According to the defendant, the actual sale consideration was fixed at Rs.45.00 lacs, but at the instance of the plaintiff to save the tax, it was shown to be for Rs.24.00 lacs. The defendant stated that the sale consideration of Rs.45.00 lacs would be more appropriate to consider inasmuch as cheque of Rs.1.00 lac each was given to Vimal, Surya Kumar and Sunita, however, the said cheques were dishonoured for want of money. They stated that the plaintiff did not have the requisite money, which is evident from dishonour of cheques for want of funds. The plaintiff, in fact, was not willing to execute the sale deed and the suit was sought to be dismissed.