KULWANT SINGH DHRUW Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 28/7/2016 passed in Civil Suit No.13-A/2015 by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby the civil suit for specific performance of agreement was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance that initially on 7/1/1982 and 1/7/1982 two agreements were executed for sale of land bearing Kh.No. 189/1 admeasuring 0.162 acres, Kh.No.189/2 area 0.081 acres, Kh.No.201 area 0.299 acres and Kh.No.202 area 0.259 acres and Kh.No.203/2 area 0.405 acres situated in Tatibandh, Raipur and pursuant to such agreement with Kejau Ram and Bismal and also acting through the minor Khubi Ram, the amount was paid to the predecessor of the defendants. Subsequently, on 14/1/1987, Rs.1.00lakh (one lakh) was given to Kejau Ram whereby the consent was also given to include the part and parcel of the further land bearing Kh.No.189/1 so as to amalgamate into one agreement. Kejau Ram died on 16/9/2011 and subsequently Bishambar (since deceased) on behalf of himself and as a Power of Attorney Holder of other land owners executed another agreement on 21/9/2007 whereby the earlier execution of agreement dtd. 7/1/1982 was acknowledged. As per the agreed terms, on the date of agreement, since the land was comprised within the ceiling limit, as such, it was agreed that the saledeed would be executed as and when the land would be released from Ceiling Act. The plaintiff asserted that at that time, another part of sale consideration Rs.2.00 lakhs was paid and remaining Rs.16.00 lakhs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is stated that subsequently the subject land in question was released from ceiling limit but the same was not informed to the plaintiff. The names of defendants 1 to 11 were recorded in revenue records. Subsequently, when a publication was made in a daily Newspaper on 25/12/2013, they came to know that defendants 1 to 11 have sold the lands to defendants 12, 13 and 14 by sale deed dtd. 13/11/2013. Consequently, the application was filed in the mutation proceeding to object the sale on the ground that prior agreement dtd. 21/9/2007 was in existence, therefore, the subsequent sale to defendants 12 to 14 would be illegal. The plaintiffs further state that they were not in possession of the said land and they are ready and willing to purchase the same but despite all their efforts, the defendants have not executed the sale deed.

(3.) During pendency of such mutation proceeding , the present suit was filed for specific performance and declaratory relief. Few of the defendants filed their written statements wherein they stated that when the agreement was executed, the land was enveloped within the Urban Land Ceiling Act, therefore, any agreement would not be specifically enforced while the land was comprised in the process of Ceiling Act. The defendants would submit that after the death of Karta, they are in possession of the said land and their names were also recorded in the revenue records to hold that they are in possession. Pursuant thereto, when the lands were declared to be released from ceiling limit, defendants 1 to 11 have executed the sale deed in favour of defendants 12 to 14 and had handed over the possession to the purchasers.