VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. E J SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed by the VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg in Civil Suit No. 3A/2008 whereby a decree for specific performance has been passed against the appellant /defendant.

(2.) Brief fact of case as pleaded by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff E.J.Shrivastava had entered into an agreement with defendant Virendra Kumar and thereby the land admeasuring Khasra No.89/218 and 89/378 admeasuring 0.92 and 0.008 hectares total 2,900 sq.ft. was agreed to be sold. Consequent thereto, both the parties entered into agreement for a sale consideration of Rs.2,33,800/- on 30.12.2005 and an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid as earnest money. It was further pleaded that the defendant agreed to sell the land after obtaining permission from the Collector within a period of one month and the rest of the sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Subsequently, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant applied for grant of permission from the Collector, Durg and the Collector Durg on 05.07.2006 granted permission under Section 165 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The plaintiff had stated that he was ready and willing to purchase the said land but for some reason or the other the sale was deferred. It is further pleaded that when the defendant was further persuaded to execute the sale-deed, the same was denied on the ground that if further additional amount is paid then he is ready to execute the sale-deed and ultimately the execution of sale-deed was denied. In order to perform the part of contract, the legal notices were issued on 30.12.2005, 05.07.2007, 20.07.2006 & 05.09.2006. Thereafter, the suit for specific performance was filed.

(3.) In reply to the averments, it was stated that the defendant belongs to Kanwar community (Scheduled Tribe) and he was working at Mumbai. Since he proposed to purchase a house at Goregaon, Mumbai, therefore, he wanted to sell the subject land through a property dealer Animesh Das for sale-consideration of Rs.2,33,800/-. It is further pleaded that since the land could not have been sold without permission of the Collector, therefore, permission was sought for under the Land Revenue Code. Subsequently, in revenue case no. 108A/21 dated 05.07.2006, the Collector granted permission to sell the land to the defendant with a condition that after purchase of property at Mumbai, the sale-deed should be placed on record before the Collector. It is further pleaded that in the meanwhile, since the price of flats at Mumbai escalated and by such sale consideration the defendant/appellant could not have purchased the property, consequently an application was filed by the defendant to cancel such permission and it was further stated that he was ready and wiling to refund the amount of earnest money of Rs.30,000/- with interest.