Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Naveen Mishra S/o Ramprakash Mishra Aged About 24 Years R/o Lavan Road
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28386-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 52 of 2020 1 - Shivram Sen S/o Shri Manrakhan Lal Sen, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Chherkapur, Tahsil - Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Defendant ), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Naveen Mishra S/o Ramprakash Mishra Aged About 24 Years R/o Lavan Road, Balodabazar, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff ), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bajaj, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 27/06/2025 1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 01B/2019 in the matter of Naveen Mishra vs. Shivram Sen (Annexure A-1). Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2.
Facts
Facts of the case, in a nutshell, as pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint, are that he entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant/appellant on 04.12.2014 for the purchase of certain agricultural land situated in Village Chherkapur, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, comprising Survey Nos. 52/3 (0.563 ha), 52/5 (0.121 ha), 53/2 (0.271 ha), and 53/3, admeasuring in total 1.360 hectares (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). According to the plaintiff, prior to the execution of the sale agreement, the defendant approached him and offered to sell the suit land, claiming that it was irrigated, fertile, and free from any dispute or encumbrance. Relying upon the representations of defendant, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land and paid an amount of 10,00,000/- as part payment on the date of ₹ execution of the sale agreement, i.e., on 04.12.2014. A further sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- was paid subsequently on 07.02.2015, thus making a total payment of 11,00,000/-. The remaining 1,00,000/- is stated to have ₹ ₹ been paid at a later unspecified date, bringing the total consideration paid to 12,00,000/-. The plaintiff further averred that, as per the terms ₹ and conditions of the sale agreement, the defendant was under an obligation to carry out demarcation of the suit land, fix boundary pegs, prepare a fresh map, and provide necessary documents including B-1 copy and proof of clear title for facilitating registration of the sale deed. It was also alleged that the defendant handed over the Rin-Pustika (loan booklet) relating to the suit land at the time of the agreement, but took it back on 22.05.2017 stating that it was needed for official work, with an assurance that it would be returned within 15 days. However, despite repeated demands, the same was never returned. Subsequently, when the plaintiff visited the suit land, he discovered that 3 the land was neither irrigated nor fertile, and upon inquiry from local residents, came to know that the land was in fact subject to certain disputes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had suppressed these material facts at the time of executing the agreement and had knowingly misrepresented the nature and condition of the suit land. Despite repeated oral requests, the defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract, including preparation of documents and demarcation of the land. Moreover, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was negotiating with third parties to sell the suit land, which prompted the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 05.09.2017 calling upon the defendant to return the advance amount of 12,00,000/- due ₹ to failure of performance and breach of contract. In response, the defendant, vide his reply dated 11.09.2017, unilaterally declared cancellation of the agreement and did not refund the advance amount. As the defendant failed to take any steps to perform his part of the agreement, including demarcation, boundary fixation, documentation, or establishing the dispute-free nature of the land, the plaintiff was left with no alternative but to initiate legal proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the civil suit on 04.12.2017 seeking recovery of ₹ 12,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the agreement. In his written statement, the defendant/appellant herein denied the allegations of fraud or misrepresentation and admitted the receipt of 12,00,000/- from the ₹ plaintiff. However, he contended that it was in fact the plaintiff who failed to perform his part of the agreement. According to the defendant, the plaintiff informed him around February, 2015 that he was undergoing financial hardship and was not in a position to proceed with 4 execution and registration of the sale deed. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff voluntarily cancelled the deal and returned the Rin-Pustika at that time. The defendant asserted that he had no intention of breaching the agreement and that he had also served a legal notice dated 13.10.2017 requesting the plaintiff to proceed with registration within a week, but the plaintiff neither responded nor complied. It was thus contended that it was the plaintiff who had defaulted and violated the sale agreement, and hence, was not entitled to claim refund of the advance amount. Accordingly, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed four issues for determination, as reflected in Para 6 of the impugned judgment (Annexure A-1). After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to refund the sum of 12,00,000/- with interest. Aggrieved ₹ by the said judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019, the defendant has preferred the present First Appeal. 3.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that a party who is in breach of contract cannot claim benefit of his own default. The absence of a forfeiture clause does not permit the appellant to retain the advance paid when he failed to 10 perform essential obligations and induced the plaintiff by misrepresentation. Equity and justice demand refund of the amount paid. The learned Trial Court has made a detailed and reasoned appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, which is neither perverse nor contrary to law. No illegality or error warrants interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. 9. In light of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Balodabazar. The Trial Court rightly held the appellant liable for breach of contract and misrepresentation and rightly directed refund of ₹ 12,00,000/- with interest to the plaintiff/respondent. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Balodabazar in Civil Suit No. 01B/2019 is affirmed. Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in decreeing the suit for refund of ₹ 12,00,000/- against the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and in fact served legal notices upon the respondent/plaintiff on two separate occasions, requesting him to proceed with the registration of the sale deed. However, the respondent, owing to financial constraints, voluntarily backed out of the transaction. It is thus evident that it was the respondent who committed breach of the agreement, and not the 5 appellant. It is undisputed that the plaintiff had expressed his inability to arrange funds and, therefore, did not proceed with the execution of the sale deed. The learned Trial Court, however, failed to appreciate this crucial aspect of the matter. It is a settled principle of law that a party who himself is in breach cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own default and claim refund merely because the agreement does not contain a forfeiture clause. The conduct of the respondent disentitles him from seeking any equitable relief. Despite the issuance of a legal notice by the appellant dated 13.10.2017, whereby the plaintiff was asked to complete the transaction within a week, the plaintiff remained silent and took no steps to perform his part of the agreement. The learned Trial Court failed to draw an adverse inference from the inaction of plaintiff and, instead, wrongly placed the burden upon the appellant. The finding of the learned Trial Court that the absence of a forfeiture clause automatically entitles the plaintiff to a refund is perverse. The real question is whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to do so and hence was not entitled to any refund. The Trial Court appears to have accepted the unsubstantiated allegation of plaintiff that the land was not fertile or irrigated and was under dispute. However, there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant made any misrepresentation or fraudulently suppressed facts. On the contrary, the plaintiff inspected the land and entered into the agreement voluntarily. The claim of misrepresentation was raised only after he decided to withdraw from the transaction. The plaintiff has failed to prove any actual loss caused to him by the appellant. The payment made was in pursuance of a bilateral 6 agreement, and upon the own withdrawal of plaintiff, the appellant suffered financial loss due to the blocking of his land for several years. In light of the aforementioned, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed manifest legal and factual errors in passing the impugned decree, which is liable to be set aside. Hence, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal; set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Balodabazar in Civil Suit No. 01B/2019; and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff/respondent with costs. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The learned Trial Court, after careful appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rightly decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff and directed refund of 12,00,000/- with interest. The impugned ₹ judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Balodabazar, are based on proper legal principles and factual matrix and do not warrant interference. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement is factually incorrect and legally untenable. It is undisputed that the appellant himself failed to fulfill essential contractual obligations, such as demarcation of the suit land, fixing boundary pegs, preparation of the fresh map, and providing necessary documents including the B-1 copy and proof of clear title. These are fundamental preconditions for registration of the sale deed, and failure on the part of the appellant to perform these obligations clearly amounts to breach of contract. The learned Trial Court rightly 7 held that the respondent/plaintiff had discharged his part by making payments totaling 12,00,000/- as advance, relying on the ₹ representations made by the appellant that the land was irrigated, fertile, and free from encumbrance. It is only after repeated assurances by the appellant that the plaintiff entered into the agreement. The subsequent discovery that the land was neither irrigated nor fertile and was subject to disputes demonstrates clear misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the appellant. The defense of appellant that the plaintiff failed to proceed with registration due to financial hardship cannot absolve the appellant of his contractual obligations or permit him to withhold the advance amount. The conduct of the appellant in taking back the Rin-Pustika on 22.05.2017 under false pretenses and failure to return it despite repeated demands clearly shows intention to frustrate the contract. The claim of appellant that the plaintiff voluntarily cancelled the agreement is a self-serving statement, unsupported by credible evidence. The fact remains that the appellant failed to perform his contractual duties and engaged in negotiations with third parties to sell the suit land even after executing the agreement with the respondent/plaintiff, thereby violating the terms of the contract and breaching trust. It is a settled legal principle that a party in breach cannot seek to take advantage of his own default. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the absence of a forfeiture clause disentitles the plaintiff to claim refund of the advance is misconceived. The learned Trial Court rightly considered the totality of circumstances and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the advance amount with interest due to the appellant’s breach. The reliance of learned counsel for appellant on 8 legal notices served by him, demanding registration from the respondent/plaintiff, is irrelevant when he himself had failed to comply with the contractual obligations necessary for completing the sale. The financial difficulties of plaintiff do not justify the failure of appellant to perform, nor do they prevent the plaintiff from recovering the advance paid in good faith. The finding of learned Trial Court that the claim of plaintiff of misrepresentation and breach was substantiated by evidence on record is based on sound appreciation of facts and law. No perversity or illegality is discernible in the impugned judgment that calls for interference by this Court. In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the respondent prays that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Balodabazar in Civil Suit No. 01B/2019. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal. 6. The principal question for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Trial Court rightly decreed the suit directing refund of the advance amount paid by the plaintiff in view of the alleged breach by the appellant and whether the findings of misrepresentation and failure to perform contractual obligations are sustainable in law and on facts. 7. On meticulous examination of pleadings, evidence, and arguments, it is evident that the appellant was under clear contractual duty to demarcate the suit land, fix boundaries, prepare a fresh map, and provide the requisite documents including B-1 copy and title proof to enable registration. The appellant’s failure to carry out these essential 9 preconditions, despite repeated requests, constitutes material breach of the agreement. The respondent/plaintiff has satisfactorily demonstrated that he was induced to enter into the agreement on the assurance that the land was fertile, irrigated, and free from disputes. The discovery that the land was neither fertile nor irrigated and was subject to encumbrances indicates that the appellant misrepresented or suppressed crucial facts to induce the contract. The evidence including oral testimony and local inquiries supports the finding of trial court of misrepresentation. The retrieval of the Rin-Pustika by the appellant with a promise to return it within 15 days, which he failed to honor despite repeated demands, signifies an intention to obstruct and frustrate the contractual performance. This conduct is inconsistent with a bona fide intention to perform. The appellant contends that he served legal notices requesting the plaintiff to complete the registration and that the financial hardship of plaintiff caused failure of the transaction. However, readiness and willingness to perform must be mutual and concomitant. The failure on the part of appellant to fulfill essential contractual conditions disentitles him to claim that the plaintiff was at fault. The claim of appellant that the plaintiff voluntarily cancelled the agreement is unsupported by credible evidence. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the appellant attempted to evade contractual obligations and negotiated with third parties while the plaintiff was ready to complete the transaction. 8.