PRITAM ASHWANI Vs. OM PRAKASH RAICHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24/4/2025 passed by 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of 1st District Judge, Bhopal in RCA no.59/2025 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2005 passed by 18th Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhopal in RCSA no.310/2022, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 25/12/2019 (Ex.P/1).

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that by way of agreement dtd. 25/12/2019 (Ex.P/1), the defendant 1 entered into an agreement to sell his house to the plaintiff and on the date of agreement itself entire amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant 1 and in turn, the defendant 1 also delivered possession to the plaintiff of the house, however, after executing agreement of sale it was agreed that whenever the plaintiff wants the sale deed shall be executed in his favour. He submits that just contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the defendant 1 illegally sold the house to defendant 2 vide registered sale deed dtd. 28/10/2021 and pursuant thereto the defendant 2 dispossessed the plaintiff from the house, resultantly the plaintiff instituted the suit on 15/3/2022 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and Courts below merely on the premise that there is no mention of sale consideration in the agreement, committed an illegality in dismissing the suit, whereas passing of sale consideration has been admitted by the defendant 1 in his oral testimony by saying that he received an amount of Rs.50.00 Lacs (Rs.Fifty lacs) from the plaintiff and lateron, he returned an amount of Rs.20.00 Lacs (Rs.Twenty lacs) and an amount of Rs.30.00 Lacs (Rs.Thirty lacs) is remaining to be paid to the plaintiff. He also submits that since on the date of agreement itself all the title documents were handed over by the defendant 1 to the plaintiff and the same have been produced before the trial Court by the plaintiff himself, therefore, it should have been presumed that in fact the agreement of sale was executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. With this background, he submits that the Courts below ought to have granted decree of specific performance. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the record.