SATYA DEV PANDEY Vs. J.P. SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Sec. 96 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC') against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 30/1/2012 passed by the learned Fourth Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.33-B/2011 whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff has been partly decreed and the decree for recovery of Rs.60,000.00 has been passed in his favour against the defendants with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the civil suit for recovery of Rs.2,20,000.00 from the defendants with the pleadings that the defendants have allured him to execute the sale deed in his favour with respect to the land of Khasra No.819/2 area 1.09 acre situated at village Khamtarai, Patwari Halka No.19, Tahsil and District Bilaspur which was owned by one Chamarinbai and executed an agreement on 30/1/2006 for the total consideration of Rs.12,50,000.00. Out of the total sale consideration, Rs.1,00,000.00 have been paid to the defendants in cash and Rs.51,000.00 have has also been paid through the cheque No.738038 which was of Bank of Baroda, Bilaspur Branch dtd. 6/2/2006, however, the said cheque was not encashed by the defendants. It was the conditions of the agreement that the defendants were in agreement with one Smt. Chamarinbai to sale her land in their favour and thereafter the defendants will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he further paid Rs.50,000.00 in cash to the defendants on 20/2/2006 and Rs.1,00,000.00 more in cash on 7/3/2006 and thus, they have paid total amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 in cash to the defendants against the total sale consideration. Despite repeated request made by the plaintiff to the defendants for registration of the sale deed, he could not get the sale deed executed and registered and subsequently he came to know that there was no agreement between the defendants and said Chamarinbai and further came to know that Smt. Chamarinbai belongs to ab-original tribe and her land cannot be alienated without prior permission of the District Collector and there is no possibility to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff lodged a report against the fraudulent activity of the defendants and a criminal case was also registered against them. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal demand notice for recovery of Rs.3,00,000.00from the defendants i.e. Rs.2,50,000.00 paid to them as an advance amount towards the sale agreement and Rs.50,000.00 as compensation. After service of legal demand notice to the defendants, defendant No.1 have repaid an amount of Rs.1,40,000.00 to the plaintiff on 1/5/2006, Rs.30,000.00 on 19/7/2007 and Rs.50,000.00 on 20/8/2007 through cheque No.35528, Rs.20,000.00 through Cheque No.355330 dtd. 20/9/2007 and Rs.20,000.00 through Cheque No.35529 dtd. 28/8/2007 and thus, only remaining amount of Rs.40,000.00 from defendant No.1 and Rs.1,80,000.00 from defendant No.2 is outstanding for which the civil suit for recovery has been filed.

(3.) The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff and denied the plaint averment and submitted their written statement with the pleadings that they have not executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and have not obtained any amount towards the advance of the sale consideration and the case of the plaintiff is based on the fake document and the same is liable to be dismissed.