ANIL KUMAR PARASWANI Vs. JUGESAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant First Appeal under Sec. 96 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dtd. 20/1/2012 (wrongly mentioned 20/1/2011) passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.2-A/2010 whereby the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The case of plaintiff before the trial court was that, the defendant entered into an agreement on 2/7/2007 to sale his land bearing Khasra No.762/2, area 1.06 Acre, situated at village Pousra, Tehsil and District Bilaspur @ Rs.70,000.00 per acre and out of total sale consideration, Rs.50,000.00 was paid as advance amount and remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time registration of sale deed. The time fixed for registration of sale deed was up to 31/3/2008. On 6/9/2008 another agreement was executed between the parties in which the total sale consideration of the suit land of 1.06 Acre was Rs.2,03,000.00 and it was mentioned in the agreement dtd. 6/9/2008 that out of total sale consideration, Rs.2,00,000.00 has already been received by the defendant and remaining amount of Rs.3000.00 would be paid at the time of registration of sale deed which was to be executed upto 30/3/2009. Even after lapse of time period fixed in the agreement when the defendant had not executed the sale deed, a legal notice was served upon him on 11/5/2009 and then the present suit for specific performance of the contract was filed on 6/6/2009.

(3.) The defendant contested the claim of plaintiff, denied the plaint averment and submitted his written statement with the pleading that he has not executed any agreement to sale his land in favour of plaintiff. The suit land is the sole source of his livelihood and there is no question to sale it. He has not received any amount as advance with respect to sale of his land. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff based on the alleged agreement dtd. 2/7/2007, however, the plaint averment have been amended and the subsequent agreement dtd. 6/9/2008 was pleaded in the plaint. It is also pleaded that in the notice dtd. 11/5/2009 there is no mention about the said agreement dtd. 6/9/2008 and therefore the alleged agreement dtd. 6/9/2008 or 2/7/2007 are suspicious documents. It is also pleaded that as per the agreement dtd. 2/7/2007 and 6/9/2008, total of Rs.2,50,000.00 is shown to have been paid to the defendant as an advance amount whereas, total sale consideration was alleged to be fixed as Rs.2,03,000.00 and therefore the entire claim of the plaintiff is doubtful and no relief for specific performance of contract can be awarded in favour of plaintiff.