Dismissed

Yashwant Kumar Sahu v. Abhishek Jain

Chhattisgarh HC4 Nov 2024FA/116/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appellate review of a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement over two land parcels. The court held the plaintiff had proved execution of the agreement through an attesting witness and confirmed the refund prayer; the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; earlier refund decree of Rs 7 lakhs with 6% interest stands affirmed; no order as to costs.

Yashwant Kumar Sahu Vs Abhishek Jain — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2024:CGHC:42899

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

FA No. 116 of 2019

¶7

Yashwant Kumar Sahu, S/o Khamman Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village - Seldeep, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

----Appellant/Defendant No.01

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Abhishek Jain, S/o Subhash Chand Jain, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Hatri Bazar, Durg Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh… Plaintiff

¶11

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

	---- Respondents
For Appellant(Defendant No.1)	: Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff)	: Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.2/State	: Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

05.11.2024

¶16

1. The appellant/defendant No.1 has assailed the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Circuit Court Kurud, District Dhamtari, in Civil Suit No.14A/2014, whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit and directed the appellant/defendant No.1 to refund the earnest amount of Rs. 7 lakhs @ 6% from the date of institution of the civil suit till its realization.

¶17

-2-

¶18

1. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

¶19

A. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract, inter alia on the ground that the appellant/defendant No.1 agreed to sell the property bearing survey no. 672 ad-measuring 0.45 hectares & Survey No. 674 admeasuring 0.56 hectares situated at village Saildeep, Patwari Halka No.34/40, Revenue Circle and Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari for consideration of Rs. 7 lakh and the entire consideration amount Rs. 7 lakhs was given in advance vide agreement dated 02.04.2013.

¶20

B. Defendant No.1 was obliged to execute the sale deed up to 02.04.2014. The plaintiff requested defendant No. 1 on many occasions, but he failed to execute the registered sale deed, therefore, a legal notice was sent through registered post on 05.03.2014. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part but when no steps were taken by defendant No.1, the suit was filed.

¶21

C. Defendant No.1 filed written and denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that no agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and he never received the earnest amount from the plaintiff. He also pleaded that he never received the notice dated 05.03.2014. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that the agreement to sell was a forged document. It is also stated that the plaintiff is a businessman and a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 was taken from the plaintiff on 12.03.2013 and it was refunded with interest on 24.12.2013 and as security, the signature of defendant No. 1 was taken on a stamp paper which has been used as an agreement.

¶22

D. The learned trial Court framed issues and parties led their evidence.

¶23

E. The learned trial Court held that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1; the plaintiff was ready to perform his part and

¶24

-3-

¶25

therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of specific performance; the agreement is not a forged document; and, the plaintiff is also entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction. Finally, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and directed defendant No.1 to refund Rs. 7 lakhs with interest @ 6 %.

¶26

Mr. Ravindra Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the learned trial Court failed to consider that the defendant had taken a loan from the plaintiff and signed on a blank stamp paper as a security of loan which has been used by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and made a false agreement. He would further submit that the appellant has not signed the agreement. He would also submit that without appreciating that the loan amount has already been refunded by the defendant, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of contract; thus, he would pray that the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 may be set-aside.

¶27

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The execution of the agreement has been proved by the plaintiff by leading clinching evidence. He would further submit that one of the witnesses to the agreement, namely, Yashwant Dilliwar (PW/2) has been examined, who supported the case of the plaintiff. He would also submit that the plaintiff was ready to perform his part, whereas, defendant No.1 failed to execute the sale deed, therefore, the civil suit was filed. He would state that the learned Court below has recorded well-reasoned findings.

¶28

1. Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below.

¶29

1. The point for consideration of this Court is as under:-

¶30

-4-

¶31

“Whether the learned court below justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract? ”.

¶32

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶33

In the present case, the plaintiff has proved his case, and the attesting witness to the Agreement dated 02.04.2013, namely Yashwant Dilliwar (PW/2), has also supported the plaintiff’s case. Yashwant Dilliwar (PW/2), in his affidavit statement recorded under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, admitted that he was present along with one Adesh Yadav at the time of execution of the agreement to sell (Ex.P/3) pertaining to Survey No. 672, measuring 0.45 hectares, and Survey No. 674, measuring 0.56 hectares, total 1.01 hectares. He admitted that Rs.7,00,000/- was given by the plaintiff to the defendant, which proved the due execution of the agreement dated 02.04.2013. Further, there is a specific prayer with regard to a refund.

¶34

1. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court , the learned trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶35

10) A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Nadim

Yashwant Kumar Sahu v. Abhishek Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Kumar Sahu v. Abhishek Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Kumar Tiwari and Anr. Vs Smt. Nanhi Bai and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Shrivastava Vs Nagar Palika Parishad

Kadar Khan ( Dead ) through Lrs Smt. Pyar Bee Vs Ekbal Karim

Smt.laxmani Bai And Anr. Vs minor Lalita And Anr.

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs State Bank Of India

Jhumuk Lal Sahu Vs Ramnath Sahu