Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Sahu vs Nankau Kashyap on 28 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19652
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2026.04.29
13:28:29 +0530
FA No. 177 of 2015
Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bhagwat Prasad Sahu Aged About 33 Years
R/o Village Ghutku, P.S. Sakri, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh Present Address-Village Indrapuri Tifra, P.S. Civil Line,
Tah. Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Nankau Kashyap S/o Late Budhai Aged About 74 Years R/o Village
Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ,
Chhattisgarh
2. Rampratap Kashyap S/o Nankau Kashyap Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Smt. Pramila Sahu W/o Late Dinesh Sahu R/o Near Dr. Nema
Sonography Clinic, Masanganj Bilaspur P.S. City Kotwali, Tah. And
Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sahil Sahu on behalf of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None, despite service of notice and filing of vakalatnma.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along
with Smt. Asha Nirmalkar, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Malay Jain, P.L.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
28/04/2026
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 15.04.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.37-A/2008, whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking relief for specific performance of contract dated 20.11.2007 has been dismissed. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the trial Court.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of the suit land bearing part of Khasra No. 1215/1 admeasuring 1750 square feet situated at Village Mangla, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, valued at Rs. 3,50,000/-. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit property and defendant No. 2, being his son, was managing his affairs and land transactions. The plaintiff pleaded that on 20.11.2007, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell the suit property to him for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- and executed an agreement to sell in his favour after receiving advance amounts from time to time aggregating to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The balance sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was further pleaded that despite repeated 3 requests and extension of time, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. It was also alleged that thereafter defendant No. 4 purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed despite having knowledge of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiff. On such pleadings, the plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance directing execution and registration of the sale deed in his favour, delivery of possession of the suit property, and declaration that the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 4 be declared null and void.
3. (i) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had never entered into any agreement to sell with the plaintiff nor executed any agreement in his favour. According to the defendants, defendant No. 1 himself managed his property affairs and had never authorized defendant No. 2 to deal with or sell the suit land on his behalf. The defendant No. 1 & 2 further denied that any negotiation had taken place with the plaintiff or his father regarding sale of the suit property or that any stamp paper was purchased for execution of an agreement. They also denied receipt of any amount from the plaintiff towards advance sale consideration, including the alleged sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 had already sold the suit property on 04.11.2008 in favour of defendant No. 4, Smt. Pramila Sahu, through a valid registered sale deed. On such pleadings, dismissal of the suit with costs was prayed for. 4
(ii) Defendant No. 4 filed her written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that no agreement to sell was ever executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was false and fabricated. It was further contended that the stamp papers were purchased by the plaintiff himself and the alleged document neither bore valid signatures nor inspired confidence. It was also pleaded that the suit was not properly valued and was otherwise not maintainable. By way of counterclaim, defendant No. 4 asserted that after due purchase through a registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 for valuable consideration, the land stood mutated in her name and she was in lawful possession thereof. On such basis, she sought declaration of title, confirmation of possession and consequential reliefs.
(iii) In reply to the counterclaim, the plaintiff contended that defendant No. 4 had purchased the property with knowledge of the prior agreement in favour of the plaintiff and during pendency of the dispute. It was alleged that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 4 was executed in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in order to defeat the plaintiff's rights under the prior agreement, and therefore the same was liable to be declared null and void.
4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as 8 issues and held that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged agreement to sell dated 20.11.2007, the 5 payment of earnest money, or any enforceable contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the relief of specific performance, execution of sale deed, and possession was declined. The trial Court further held that defendant No.4 had validly purchased the land bearing Khasra No.1215/8 admeasuring 0.044 hectare through a registered sale deed and had proved her title and possession by cogent evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and the counter- claim of defendant No.4 was decreed, declaring her owner and possessor of the suit land.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court are contrary to the facts on record and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Learned counsel submits that the finding that no agreement to sell was executed is erroneous, particularly when D.W.2 Hemant Kumar Tonde, the document writer, admitted the execution of agreement dated 20.11.2007 (Ex. P-1) and also admitted his signatures thereon. It is further argued that the trial Court committed grave error in ignoring the admission and signatures of defendant No.2 on the said agreement deed, yet wrongly held that defendant No.2 had not entered into any agreement. It is also submitted that the finding regarding challenge to the sale deed is misconceived and based on misreading of pleadings. Learned counsel further 6 contends that the trial Court failed to consider the equitable principles arising out of part performance of the contract and the admitted advance amount paid by the plaintiff, for which at least refund ought to have been granted. It is lastly submitted that dismissal of the suit on the ground of insufficient evidence is contrary to law and the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would support the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court.
7. Despite service of notice and filing of vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2, they have chosen not to appear before this Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
9. The foundation of the plaintiff's case rests upon the alleged agreement to sell dated 20.11.2007 (Ex.P-1). However, the plaintiff himself, while appearing as P.W.1 Jitendra Kumar Sahu, admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of execution of Ex.P-1, defendant No.1 Nanaku Kashyap was not present. He further admitted that Ex.P-1 does not bear the signature of defendant No.1. He also conceded that he had never seen any power of attorney or authority executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 Rampratap authorising him to sell the 7 land. These admissions strike at the very root of the plaintiff's case, because defendant No.1 was the recorded bhumiswami of the land and in absence of his execution or any lawful authorization, no enforceable contract could come into existence.
10. The testimony of P.W.3 Rajesh Seventkar, projected as an attesting witness, also demolishes the plaintiff's case. He categorically admitted in cross-examination that when the alleged agreement was written, defendant No.1 Nanaku Kashyap was not present and no signatures of Nanaku Kashyap were made on Ex.P-1. He further admitted that even the plaintiff was not present at the time of execution. Such evidence creates serious doubt regarding the very manner and genuineness of execution of Ex.P-
1.
11. Likewise, P.W.2 Kamta Prasad Barmaiya did not support the plaintiff on material particulars and admitted that he was unaware whether any agreement had actually taken place between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, the independent witnesses examined by the plaintiff did not corroborate the alleged transaction.
12. Significantly, P.W.4 Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, father of the plaintiff, admitted that on the date of execution of Ex.P-1, defendant No.1 had not signed the document and that defendant No.2 had informed him that his father was suffering from paralysis. He also admitted that defendant No.1 was unable to move. Therefore, 8 even according to the plaintiff's own witness, the owner of the property neither signed nor personally executed the agreement. The scribe of the document, namely D.W.3 Hemant Kumar Tonde, clearly stated that the stamp paper was brought by Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, father of the plaintiff, who narrated the contents whereafter he wrote the document. He further stated that the document was later brought signed and he signed it on trust. He specifically admitted that defendant No.2 Rampratap had not signed in his presence. Thus, the scribe did not prove due execution of the agreement by the defendants; rather his evidence creates grave suspicion regarding its authenticity.
13. Defendant No.2 Rampratap Kashyap, examined as D.W.1, admitted his signatures on certain portions of Ex.P-1, but consistently denied receiving any sale consideration and specifically deposed that he had no authority from his father to enter into any agreement regarding the suit land. No power of attorney, authorization letter, or any other document was produced by the plaintiff to rebut the said statement. Therefore, mere signatures of defendant No.2 on some portion of Ex.P-1 do not create a binding contract against the true owner.
14. The evidence on record further establishes that defendant No.1 Nanaku Kashyap was an aged person suffering from paralysis. His commission testimony shows that he denied execution of any agreement in favour of the plaintiff and stated that he had never entered into such transaction. Though his memory was weak, 9 nothing material could be elicited to prove that he had consciously authorised defendant No.2 to sell the property.
15. Thus, from the cumulative reading of the entire evidence, it stands proved that Ex.P-1 was neither executed by defendant No.1 nor by any duly authorised agent on his behalf. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove a valid and concluded contract capable of specific performance. So far as the alleged payment of earnest money is concerned, the plaintiff pleaded payment of Rs.2,50,000/-, but no independent and reliable evidence of such payment has been produced. The witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding dates, mode of payment and presence of parties. In absence of cogent proof of consideration, the trial Court rightly disbelieved the plaintiff's story.
16. On the contrary, defendant No.4 Pramila Sahu proved that she purchased the property through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration from the recorded owner. She produced the sale deed, mutation entries, revenue records and possession documents. Her evidence remained unshaken in cross- examination. She also proved that prior to purchase, a public notice was published in the newspaper inviting objections, yet no objection was raised by the plaintiff. There is also no convincing evidence to show that defendant No.4 had prior notice of any valid subsisting agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Once Ex.P-1 itself is not proved, the challenge to the subsequent registered sale deed automatically fails.
10
17. Applying the aforesaid principles, since the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Ex.P-1, failed to establish payment of consideration, and failed to prove any lawful right superior to the registered title of defendant No.4, the learned trial Court committed no illegality in dismissing the suit and decreeing the counterclaim of defendant No.4.
18. No perversity, misreading of evidence or substantial error of law is made out warranting interference in appeal. Accordingly, the present first appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
19. Decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti/Rahul