HARNATH SINGH CHOWHAN Vs. CHANDRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against impugned judgment and decree of 12th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.397-A/20008 [Harnathsingh Chowhan Vs. Smt.Chandrawati and others] whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property, as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment, which is an agricultural land situated in village Chhapri, admeasuring 12.07 acres, bearing Khasra Nos.101, 102, 108, 109 & 99/6, Patwari Halka No.32, R.I.Circle-3, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal has been dismissed.

(2.) Before the learned trial Court it was an admitted position that between the plaintiff and defendant No.4 there was an agreement for sale dtd. 15/1/2007 in respect of the suit property and total consideration of the property was Rs.2,07,00,000.00, out of which, Rs.1.00 lac was paid by Cheque No.086085 dtd. 11/1/2007. The said cheque was given by the plaintiff to the defendant, but the same got dishonoured. It is also an admitted fact that initially the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction but subsequently during pendency of suit had amended the relief clause and also prayed for specific performance of contract.

(3.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court on the ground that after inspection of the suit property there was an agreement to sale between him and defendants No.1 to 4 and out of sale price he paid Rs.1.00lac by way of cheque. As per condition No.15 of sale agreement the plaintiff had to get the suit land cleaned and approach road was also to be made by the plaintiff. He had also paid Rs.1.00 lac by cash and when the cheque of plaintiff was dishonoured, then plaintiff informed the defendant that he is sorry as the cheque has been dishonoured and he is ready to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lac. In the meantime he started the suit property to be cleaned and demarcated. It was agreed between the parties that though sale agreement was made on 15/1/2007 but sale deed would be executed on 15/3/2007. It is further submitted by plaintiff that regarding dishonor of cheque it was agreed by the parties that it was due to bonafide reasons. The suit property remained demarcated for which defendant was requested so that balance amount can be paid and it was also pointed out to the defendant that as per condition No.8 of Agreement the plaintiff cannot sell the suit property to any other party. The plaintiff also sent the banker's cheque to the defendants, but the defendant No.4 through his local counsel returned the banker's cheque on 22/4/2007 and stated that since the agreement has been breached, therefore, agreement is not subsisting due to dishonor of cheque of Rs.1.00 lac. Since the price of land has increased, therefore, defendants were not executing the sale deed. Accordingly, subsequently relief for specific performance of contract was claimed in suit.