ANIL MISHRA Vs. RAMPAL BORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Trial Court has dismissed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-10-2008 for an area admeasuring 0.79 acre out of total area of 0.968 hectares (2.38 acres) bearing khasra No.1355/1 situated at village Tifra, PH No.23, Tahsil and District Bilaspur.

(2.) The property belonging to the ancestors of the defendants No.1 to 3 devolved on them upon death of their mother namely; Smt. Padmini Bai. Their names are recorded as joint owners in the revenue record, but, according to the plaintiff, the partition has already taken place amongst the defendants in which the defendant No.1 was allotted 1/3rd share admeasuring 0.79 acre. The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff for sale of his share i.e. 0.79 acre at the rate of Rs.42,00,000/- per acre. The negotiation was finalised in the presence of witnesses Bharti and Rajesh and the defendant No.1 received two cheques to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- and Rs.80,000/-, in total Rs.2,50,000/- as advance and executed the agreement on 1-10-2008. As the execution of sale deed might have taken some time, the defendant No.1 requested that for the purpose of payment of stamp duty he desires to mention the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.11,00,000/- per acre albeit he will accept the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.42,00,000/- per acre. After this agreement between the parties another registered agreement was executed by the defendant No.1 on 7-3-2009. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant No.1 moved an application for separation of his holding before the Tashildar, Bilaspur, but during pendency of the suit the defendants No.1 to 3 joined hands and withdrew the application so as to avoid execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant No.1 filed his own written statement whereas the defendants No.2 and 3 jointly filed a separate written statement. According to the defendants, the land was purchased by their mother Smt. Padmini Bai and after her death all the legal heirs have inherited equal share in the property though only the defendant No.1 is in possession of the land. It was also stated that the mental condition of the defendant No.1 was not proper, therefore, the plaintiff took advantage of the situation and got executed the agreement as also the revenue proceedings. It was further stated that the defendant No.1 has not got any share up to 0.79 acre as no partition has ever taken place amongst legal heirs. It was specifically pleaded in para 4 of the written statement that the appellant is a property dealer.