Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: specific performance and declaration in Ashish vs Pritesh on 3 April, 2025Matching Fragments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally the plaintiff (Pritesh Chordia) filed Civil Suit No.267- A/2010 against Manju Bala and 5 Ors., the said suit was decreed on 08.02.2022 for specific performance and declaration.
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022, the present appeals filed by the appellant / defendant (Smt. Manju Bala) in First Appeal No.477/2022 and subsequent purchasers / defendants No.5 and 6 (Ashish and Anil Kumar) filed another First Appeal No.428/2022.
COMMON JUDGMENT First Appeals No.428/2022 and 477/2022
01. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of CPC, the appellants / defendants No.5 (Ashish) and 6 (Anil Kumar) have filed First Appeal No.428/2022 and the appellant (Manju Bala) / defendant No.1 filed another First Appeal No.477/2022 calling in question the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022 passed by V District Judge, Ratlam (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.267-A/2010 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:8855 3 FA Nos.428/2022, 477/2022 decreeing the suit filed for specific performance and declaration declaring that the sale deeds dated 20.09.2010, 18.12.2013 and 13.12.2016 are void in respect of disputed agricultural land situated in Village Viriyakhedi, Ratlam in survey No.162/4 area 0.640 hectares.
The plaintiff (Pritesh) has filed a suit against the defendants No.1 to 6 seeking for specific performance and declaration declaring that the registered sale deeds dated 20.09.2010, 18.12.2013 and 13.12.2016 are illegal and void and for permanent injunction for the disputed agricultural land bearing survey No.162/4 situated in Village Viriyakhedi, Ratlam admeasuring 0.640 hectares. Further averred that defendant No.1 (Manju NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:8855 4 FA Nos.428/2022, 477/2022 Bala) is the owner of the disputed agricultural land / schedule property, which is free from encumbrances proposed to sell the entire disputed land to the plaintiff for Rs.14,50,000/-. Considering the negotiations, the defendant No.1 (Manju Bala) had executed an agreement of sale dated 17.04.2009 in favour of the plaintiff by receiving an advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of Cheque No.1350219 of Mandsaur Regional Rural Bank, the said cheque was encashed by defendant No.1.
07. As seen from the written statement of defendant No.1, there is a clear and categorical denial of her signature as well as the execution of agreement of sale dated 17.04.2009, further averred that defendant No.1 was the owner of the land admeasuing 0.640 hectares in survey No.162/4 Village Viriyakhedi, Tehsil and District Ratlam. On 20.09.2010 the said disputed land was sold to defendant No.2 (Naina) by defendant No.1 and possession was also given to defendant No.2, further averred that defendant No.1 was no longer the owner of the said land, defendant No.1 never executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and the said sale agreement is forged by plaintiff, his father Ramesh and one Farooq, further averred that the said agreement dated 17.04.2009 does not bear the signature of defendant No.1. The said sale agreement dated 17.04.2009 brought into existence by plaintiff with the connivance of his father and Farooq causing loss to defendant No.1, further averred that the Stamp NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:8855 6 FA Nos.428/2022, 477/2022 bearing No.240566 dated 17.04.2009, the District Treasury Officer has informed that the said stamp has been issued by District Treasury to Smt. Chandrakala Verma, Stamp Vendor dated 04.06.2010 for challan dated 02.06.2010, therefore, the question of said stamp has been sold on 17.04.2009 does not arise, the alleged signature made on the disputed agreement to sale has been examined by Expert H.S. Tuteja, Indore has given a report that on comparing the alleged signture on the disputed agreement and the sale deed dated 20.09.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, the signture of defendant No.1 is not on the disputed agreement, further averred that the said agreement is forged and fabricated, it is inadmissible in evidence, the said agreement has not been executed in the proper stamp, further averred that plaintiff has purchased the stamp on 04.06.2010, the plaintiff has deliberately written the sale price of Rs.14,50,000/-, further averred that plaintiff had paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.1350219 dated 18.04.2009 in connection with the other transactions, further averred that there was a doubt in the mind of defendant that the plaintiff should pay Rs.3,00,000/- with malice intent to usurp the property of defendant No.1 and prepared sale agreement on the forged stamp showing that the amount was paid by him for advance sale consideration, further averred that the plaintiff was never ready to pay balance sale consideration and he did never give any information requesting her to come to Sub-Registrar Office to fulfil his contract, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief much less of any specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction and prayed for dismissal of the suit with an amount of Rs.10,000/-.