Smt. Sarla Nagwani, W/o Late Shri Roopchand Nagwani, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gandhi v. 1 - Ghanshyam Soni, S/o
Case Details
PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.10 17:32:26 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:11398-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 187 of 2015 Smt. Sarla Nagwani, W/o Late Shri Roopchand Nagwani, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Ward No. 14 Baloda Bazar, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Ghanshyam Soni, S/o Shri Baldev Prasad Soni, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Subhash Chowk, Ward No. 715 Baloda Bazar, Tehsil Baloda Bazar, Post Office Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 2 Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 07/03/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 14/05/2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.16-A/2013, whereby, the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that a suit for specific performance of contract was instituted by the plaintiff- Smt. Sarla Nagwani on 25/11/2013, submitting inter alia, that by virtue of an agreement to sale, dated 29/05/2012 (Ex.P/1), the defendant No.1- Ghanshyam Soni was agreed to alienate the house-in-question constructed over an area of 752 Sq.Ft. of Sheet No.-18-A, Plot No.129/01, situated at Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-, after receiving an earnest amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with a stipulation that the rest of the amount, i.e. Rs.8,00,000/-, was to be paid at the time of execution of the registered deed of sale, which was to be executed by the end of March, 2013. It is pleaded further that despite issuance of several notices on 10/01/2013 (Ex.P/2), 07/03/2013 (Ex.P/6), 19/03/2013 (Ex.P/9) and 22/04/2013 (Ex.P/14), the said defendant has failed to execute the registered deed of sale in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale, therefore, she has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature. 3 3. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendant No.1 that the alleged agreement to sale was not executed for alienating the house-in-question and, in fact, the same was executed for security of the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and, therefore, the claim as made deserves to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, and by considering the terms and conditions stipulated in the alleged agreement to sale, dated 29/05/2012, held that the alleged agreement (Ex.P/1) was not executed for alienation of the house-in-question and, in fact, it was executed for security of the loan amount and that by observing further that the plaintiff has failed to establish the ownership of the defendant No.1 over the house-in- question and having failed to prove her readiness and willingness, she would, therefore, be not entitled to get the registered deed of sale with regard to the hosue-in-question and, accordingly, her claim has been refused and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the alleged agreement to sale was executed for security of the loan amount and the plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the registered deed of sale executed in her favour is, apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the plaintiff and the documents produced by her, have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in dismissing her claim, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 4 respondent No.1 has supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that an agreement to sale (Ex.P/1) was executed on 29/05/2012 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Amit Kumar and Md. Ameen and, a bare perusal of the terms and conditions stipulated therein, would show that the registered deed of sale was required to be executed by defendant No.1, either in favour of the plaintiff/ purchaser or in the name of the person, as was proposed by her by the end of March, 2013, for a consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-, upon receiving an earnest amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. 9. It appears further that much prior to the end of March, 2013, notices were issued by the plaintiff on 10/01/2013 (Ex.P/2) and 07/03/2013 (Ex.P/6) requesting the defendant No.1 to get the relevant papers ready regarding the house-in-question, so that the sale could be executed as required under the alleged agreement to sale and, a public notice to this effect was also made on 05/02/2013 vide Ex.P/5 and it appears further that after the month of March 2013, when the registered deed of sale was not executed, another notice was issued by the plaintiff on 22/04/2013 vide Ex.P/14 and requested the defendant No.1 to execute the registered deed of sale within the period of one month. It, thus, appears that the alleged notices (Ex.P/2 and P/6) were issued much prior to the last month of March, 2013, though, the same were not required to be issued and 5 that apart, even after completion of one month period from the issuance of the notice dated 22/04/2013 (Ex.P/14), the suit was, however, not instituted immediately thereafter and instead, it was filed only on 25/11/2013, i.e. after passing of more than 06 months. The conduct of the plaintiff would, thus, shows that she was not ready to get the registered deed of sale executed with regard to the house-in-question, else the suit must have been instituted immediately after the expiry of one month from the date of issuance of notice, dated 22/04/2013. That apart, according to the plaintiff, she was involved in embroidery business and was having sufficient fund to get the sale deed executed in her favour, but no document to this effect was placed on record showing that she was involved in the said embroidery business and, contrarily, it was revealed from the testimony of PW-2 – Amit Kumar that she was neither involved in any kind of business, nor has any source of income. Therefore, it cannot be said that she had sufficient fund to get the sale deed executed in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale (Ex.P/1). 10. It is to be seen further, as reflected from the notice issued on 19/03/2013 (Ex.P/9), wherein, it was requested by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 to appear before the office of Registrar on 30/03/2013 and despite of her presence on the said date before the said office, defendant No.1 has failed to appear, but, the averment made in this regard by the plaintiff, at paragraph 9, would show that she was present in the office along with their witnesses. However, these witnesses have not stated that they were present along with the plaintiff in the office of Registrar. In view thereof, it cannot be 6 said that the plaintiff was appeared before the said office as pleaded by her. Her alleged plea, thus, appears to be a false one and has been made with an ulterior motive to get the registered deed of sale executed in her favour in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale (Ex.P/1). 11. Pertinently to be noted here further that a specific defence was taken by the defendant No.1 that the alleged agreement to sale was not executed for the said purpose and, in fact, it was executed for the security of the loan amount and the plaintiff herself has admitted the said fact, as revealed from para 18 of her testimony, wherein she has specifically admitted the said fact by saying that it was executed for the security of the loan amount. Thus, from the stretch of any imagination, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is entitled to get the registered deed of sale in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale (Ex.P/1) and, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of contract, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 12. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant