1

CGHC010164392019

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Judgment Reserved on 07/08/2026

Judgment Delivered on 25 /08/2026

Judgment Uploaded on 25 /08/2026

FA No. 223 of 2019

Keshavram Sahu, S/o Milau Sahu, Aged About 51 Years, Krishak

Mordha, Patwari Halka No. 47, R.N.M. Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh. R/o Kumhari, Post Gaurbhanth, Tahsil Arang, District

Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant

versus

1 - Ravishankar Kashyap (Sahu) S/o Late Jaishnakar Kashyap,

Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Near Ram Talkies,

Mahasamund, Police Station And District Mahasamund

Chhattisgarh.

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasamund, District

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

For Appellant:Shri Sandeep Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent

No.1

:Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

For

State/respondent

No.2

:Shri Jai Prakash Tiwari, Panel Lawyer.

2

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

CAV Judgment

1.Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the

appellant has filed this appeal assailing the legality,

correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated

27/02/2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast

Track Court, Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit

No.31-A/2014. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial

court has allowed the suit filed by the respondent No.1 for

specific performance of the contract in respect of property

comprising piece of khasra No.627 area 0.47 hectare

situated at village Mordha, PH No.47, RIC, Mahasamund

(C.G.) and thereby passed by the following decree:-

“1. Defendant No. 1 shall execute the registered sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the land

situated at Mouza Mordha, Patwari Halka No. 47,

Revenue Inspector Circle Mahasamund, bearing

Khasra No. 627, area 0.47 hectares, Padat Bhari

land, within three months from the date of judgment,

as per the Agreement to Sale/Transfer Deed (Ex.

P-7).

3

2. The defendants shall bear their own costs and the

costs of the plaintiff.

3. Advocate’s fee, as certified, whichever is less, shall

be payable.”

2.Parties are referred through their status before the trial

court. The respondent No.1 who happens to be the plaintiff

filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of

the suit property mentioned herein above inter alia

pleading that an agreement to sale was executed by

plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 28/08/2012 in presence of

two witnesses for a sale consideration of Rs.98,000/-. The

entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to

defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 avoided the

execution of the sale deed by making his presence before

the Registrar Office, thus he sent a legal notice to the

defendant No.1 which was refused to accept by him. Thus,

seeking the above stated reliefs, the civil suit was filed.

3.The defendant No.1 appeared before the learned Civil

Judge and filed written statement and denied the

averments of the plaint. He denied the execution of the

sale agreement and rather pleaded that by playing fraud

with him being so simple and sober person and illiterate

person taking advantage of it, the said agreement to sale

4

was executed by fabrication which was not within the

knowledge of the defendant No.1. It was denied that he

has received any sale consideration neither the possession

was delivered. As the entire amount has not been

received, he never assured the registration of the sale

deed neither had a talk with regard to the execution of the

sale deed. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.The learned trial judge on the basis of the above cross

pleadings, framed the following issues which are quoted

herein below:-

Issues Finding

1(a) Whether Defendant No. 1 had

entered into an agreement with the

plaintiff for sale of the land situated

at Mouza Mordha, Patwari Halka

No. 47, Revenue Inspector Circle

Mahasamund, bearing Khasra No.

627, admeasuring 0.47 hectares,

being Padat Bhari land?

Proved

(b) If so, whether the defendant,

towards the said transaction,

received Rs.98,000/- on 28-08-

2012, executed the agreement to

sale and delivered possession of

the land to the plaintiff?

Proved

(c) If so, what is its effect?“As per paragraph 22 of the

judgment.”

2(a) Whether the defendant failed Proved

5

to comply with the terms of the suit

regarding the execution and

registration of the registered sale

deed within one week, despite the

plaintiff being ready and willing on

his part to perform his part?

(b)If so, what is its effect?“As per paragraph 22 of the

judgment.”

03.Relief and Costs? As per paragraph 22 of the

judgment.”

5.The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined as many

as four witnesses and exhibited eight documents. The

defendant No.1 examined himself and exhibited four

documents. On appreciation of materials and evidence

available on record, the learned trial court allowed the suit

and passed the decree which has already been quoted

herein above. The same is under challenge before this

Court in this appeal.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 argued

that in order to sustain a decree of specific performance of

contract, the provisions contained in section 16 (c) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 are required to be complied with

by the plaintiff. In absence of compliance of any of the

conditions envisaged, the decree of specific performance

of contract cannot be granted. He submits that the plaintiff

has not specifically pleaded his readiness and willingness

6

to perform his part of contract. Thus, the plaint is lacking in

proper pleadings in this regard. Thus, no decree of specific

performance can be granted. Apart from this, he submits

that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the issue no.1

& 2 by leading cogent and prudent evidence, thus the

finding recorded by the learned trial court in respect of

issue no.1(a) and 1(b) is liable to be set aside. He submits

that in absence of adequate pleading with regard to

readiness and willingness, the issue no.2 as incorporated

has been erroneously decided as proved by the learned

trial court whereas the evidence is in short coming in this

respect. Thus, he submits that the impugned judgment and

decree deserves to be set aside.

7.Alternatively, he submits that as the alleged agreement

was executed on 28/08/2012 and the judgment and decree

was passed on 27/02/2019 and the appeal is pending for

almost six years, the Court may not exercise the

discretionary relief of grant of specific performance in

favour of the plaintiff. He places reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sangita

Sinha Vs. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Others reported in

2025 SCC OnLine SC 723 and judgment of this Court

7

passed in FA No.88 of 2022 dated 08/08/2025 and order

dated 15/07/2025 passed in FA No.81/2023.

8.Per contra, Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the

finding of issue no.1 and 2 are based upon due

appreciation of evidence available on record. He submits

that the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint has categorically

stated that he is always willing to perform his part of

contract and as such, the entire sale consideration of

Rs.98,000/- had already been paid to the

appellant/defendant No.1 at the time of execution of the

sale agreement itself, thus the readiness and willingness

was always writ large. Apart from this, notice was sent to

the defendant for performance of his part of the contract,

however the same has been refused to accept by him.

Thus, the defendant has not come to this Court with clean

hands and has taken a false defence that no such

execution of agreement was done by the parties. Apart

from this, he submits that the witness to the agreement

were duly examined and the plaintiff and their witnesses

have categorically proved the execution of agreement to

sale Ex.P-7 and thus as the defendant has already

received the entire sale consideration and refused to

8

execute the sale deed, the right which has been

crystallized in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of passing of

impugned judgment and decree, may not be disturbed by

exercising the discretionary relief in favour of defendant

No.1. He further submits that the discretion is to be

exercised in favour of those litigants who are coming to the

Court with clean hands. In the case in hand, from the

conduct of the defendant No.1, it is evident that he has not

been truthful before the court below. The learned trial court

has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. He

placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of

Dhirendra Seth and Ors. Vs. Rajat Gautam reported in

MANU/CG/2014/2023. He further submits that as the

delivery of the possession has been given in lieu of the

execution of the agreement, as per the direction of the trial

court, the said stamp duty was duly paid, thus the

agreement was admitted in evidence.

9.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

10.First this Court would like to deal with the submission

of Shri Sandeep Patel, learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant No.1 in respect of finding of issue no.1

and 2. The issue no.1(a) and 1(b) are in respect of

9

execution of the sale agreement dated 28/08/2012. The

burden to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. In order to

prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1.

The defence of the appellant/defendant No.1 is that the

agreement was executed keeping in dark taking advantage

of he being illiterate. The plaintiff Ravishankar Kashyap in

his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC deposed that

defendant No.1 resides outside village Mordha and as he

resides outside, he remains unable to cultivate on the suit

property and entered into an agreement with him for his

personal need for Rs.98,000/- on 28/08/2012 and also

delivered the possession on the same day by executing

the agreement to sale Ex.P-7. He has further stated that

after execution of the agreement to sale, it was agreed that

the map of the suit property was not prepared on the date

of agreement to sale and rin pustika of the suit property

was deposited in the co-operative society, he could not

execute the sale deed and it’s registration on that day. It

has been stated that after obtaining the rin pustika from the

co-operative society and further obtaining the B-1, Khasra

panchshala, map etc. of the suit property, the sale deed

could be executed in his favour. Hence, there was no time

limit fixed for execution of the sale deed. Later after one

10

week, the plaintiff have made a request to the defendant

No.1 for obtaining the necessary document and stated that

he has kept the necessary amount for registration of sale

deed and he is ready for execution of the same. He further

deposed that he made several request for execution of the

sale deed, however the same was avoided by the

defendant No.1. Ultimately on 17/09/2012, the plaintiff sent

a legal notice to the defendant No.1 for execution and

registration of the sale deed in his favour. Despite receipt

of the same, he did not contacted him neither replied to the

legal notice. The defendant No.1 failed to execute and

register the sale deed in his favour causing suspicion and

thus he contacted defendant No.1 on telephone, however

the same was not done. He further deposed that he is

ready and willing to execute and register the sale deed and

ready to bear the expenses for registration of the same. In

the cross-examination, question was put by the defendant

No.1 with regard to the present value of the suit property. A

suggestion was made by the defendant No.1 that in the

agreement to sale dated 28/08/2012 payment of the entire

sale consideration and obtaining possession of the suit

property has been mentioned. It has also come in the

cross-examination that on the suit property, the plaintiff is

11

in possession. However, he stated that no revenue

documents have been filed in this respect. It was further

suggested to him that, in the agreement to sale, when the

witness was asked as to why it was mentioned that the

sale deed could be executed in the name of any person as

desired by him, the witness replied that there was a

concession in the registration fee if the sale deed was

executed in the name of a woman and, keeping this fact in

mind, such a provision was incorporated in the agreement.

Now from the defence which has been put forth by the

defendant in his cross-examination, it appears to be of that

effect that the possession was handed over at the time of

execution of agreement to sale and the agreement was not

executed in his personal name rather as the sale deed

could be executed in anybody’s name as has been

mentioned in the agreement to sale. Though a suggestion

when was given that the alleged agreement was fraud and

wrong which was denied by the plaintiff. Ram Prasad Sahu

(PW-2) who is witness to the agreement was examined

who has deposed that in presence of Ravi Shankar Sahu

(plaintiff) the agreement to sale was executed and in his

and Anand Ram Diwan’s presence, the defendant No.1

has put his signature in the agreement. He further

12

corroborates the factum of payment of Rs.98,000/- and

assurance given by the defendant No.1 for getting the sale

deed executed after releasing his rin pustika on payment of

rent and obtaining documents from the patwari. In the

cross-examination, the defence which appears to be put

forth by the defendant No.1 is with regard to value of the

suit property. Though the submission has been given that

only Rs.500/- was given at the time of execution and rest

of the amount was to be paid before the notary. However,

the main defence appears to be restricted towards the

value of the suit property to around Rs.1.5 lakhs to 2 lakhs

per acre. Thus, from the evidence of plaintiff and the

witness of the agreement to sale, the execution of the

same appears to have been proved by the plaintiff.

11. Dharmendra Dadsena (PW-3) have also been

examined who was Notary before whom the execution of

agreement to sale has taken place who has certified that

he has notarized the agreement to sale and parties have

accepted the amount and agreed to execute the

agreement to sale and put their signatures. He has also

exhibited the original notary register as Ex.P-8 where the

signature of the seller i.e. defendant No.1 is mentioned

from ‘A to A’ part and from ‘B to B’ part the signature of the

13

plaintiff is mentioned which was scribed before him. By

cross-examination of this witness, the defendant No.1 tried

to substantiate that the signature was put without proper

reading of the same by the defendant No.1. However, this

witness himself has stated that Keshav Ram the defendant

No.1 has put his signature after reading the recital of the

exhibit.

12.The another witness Anand Ram Diwan (PW-4) also

deposed in the same line and stated that after receiving

amount of Rs.98,000/- ‘the agreement was executed’

and have also deposed that the defendant has stated that

the rin pustika is deposited in the society and thus registry

could not be done and after payment of the loan of the

society and getting the copy of the map, he will get the

registry done. He denied the suggestion that amount of

Rs.98,000/- was not given to the defendant No.1. He also

denied the suggestion that the amount of consideration

was Rs.1,90,000/-. By giving him suggestion and as well

as the suggestions made to the other witnesses with

regard to the value of the suit property, the case being

projected by the defendant No.1 is that infact the value of

the property is in between Rs.1.5 lakhs to 2 lakhs and sale

deed was agreed to be executed of Rs.1,90,000/-.

14

13.Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1. His

defence is that the agreement to sale was executed for a

consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- and only Rs.98,000/-

advance was paid and rest of the amount was required to

be paid at the time of the registry of the suit property,

however by playing fraud with him, the signatures were

obtained and the agreement to sale was not explained to

him. He stated that he put his signature knowing that the

agreement to sale is for sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-

and in advance Rs.98,000/- was only paid. He pleaded that

the plaintiff has played fraud with him and he has not

delivered the possession to Ravishankar Kashyap means

plaintiff. Thus, no other witness on behalf of defendant has

been examined. From the evidence so assessed, the fact

which emerges is that the signature of the defendant No.1

on agreement to sale no more remains in dispute. The

plaintiff tried to project that the sale consideration was

Rs.98,000/- and the entire sale consideration was paid at

the time of execution of agreement to sale and the

possession was also delivered. The defendant No.1

assured the plaintiff that as his rin pustika is deposited in

the co-operative society, the loan amount is being paid and

necessary documents are obtained, he will execute and

15

register the sale deed. In order to prove the case, two

witnesses of the agreement to sale, plaintiff himself and a

notary who has notarized the agreement to sale was

examined. All of them have stated the execution of the

agreement. Apart from this, the defendant has also stated

that he has put his signature on the agreement to sale,

however took a defence that the sale consideration was

Rs.1,90,000/- which is also appears to be a defence put

forth from the cross-examination of the other witnesses

trying to say that the value of the suit property is between

Rs.1.5 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs. A question which is before this

Court is that whether the value of the suit property is

Rs.98,000/- or Rs.1,90,000/-. Though the defendant is

trying to project this, however in the opinion of this Court,

the same has not been proved by any other witness before

whom the agreement was executed to be of Rs.98,000/-.

Thus, on assessment of the evidence, the learned trial

court gave the finding in favour of the plaintiff with respect

to issue No.1 and 2, the finding appears to be based on

proper appreciation of evidence, thus hereby affirmed.

14.Now the next submission which has come up before

this Court is with regard to readiness and willingness. Shri

Sandeep Patel submits that the pleading in this respect is

16

inadequate. Perusal of the pleading would indicate that

the case of the plaintiff from the very beginning is that the

entire amount of consideration of Rs.98,000/- has already

been paid. As he is always ready to execute the sale deed,

the question remains once the Court has found proved with

regard to the execution of the agreement and payment of

the entire sale consideration, the only facts remains with

regard to expenses to be borne out at the time of execution

and registration of the sale deed. Of course, the plaintiff

has only stated that he is ready and the pleading is not that

happily worded but from the entire pleading, the intention

of the plaintiff, it has to be gathered. Apart from this, the

learned trial court has also framed an issue with regard to

readiness and willingness and it was found to be proved.

The entire amount of consideration was paid, possession

was handed over and as such no time limit was given and

notice was issued to him despite of that, the sale

agreement was not registered and executed. The suit was

filed on 12/09/2013 and the sale agreement was executed

on 28/08/2012 that it cannot be said that the plaintiff was

keeping mum rather from his evidence it is quite vivid that

he has been trying to get the sale deed executed. Apart

from this, it has to be seen with regard to as the agreement

17

was unregistered and delivery of possession has taken

place, the stamp duty was also paid. The reliance which

has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant with

due respect, the law which has been laid down there

cannot be any quarrel to this. However, the fact remains

the parties to the litigation should come to the Court with

clean hands. From the evidence so gathered, the factum

remains that firstly the plaintiff had been vigilant for

execution of the sale agreement and the defendant took a

stand that the sale consideration was Rs.1,90,000/- it does

not appear to be correct or truthful. Thus, the benefit shall

not go to the defendant. Now the last submission by Shri

Patel is that the discretionary relief shall not be granted to

the plaintiff.

15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kamal Kumar

Vs. Premlata Joshi and others, reported in (2019) 3 SCC

709 laid down the parameters with regard to grant of

decree of specific performance as under:-

“7. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief

of specific performance is a discretionary and

equitable relief. The material questions, which are

required to be gone into for grant of the relief of

specific performance, are:

18

7.1 First, whether there exists a valid and concluded

contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the

suit property;

7.2 Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and

willing to perform his part of contract and whether he

is still ready and willing to perform his part as

mentioned in the contract;

7.3 Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed

his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what

extent and in what manner he has performed and

whether such performance was in conformity with the

terms of the contract;

7.4 Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the

relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against

the defendant in relation to suit property or it will

cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if

so, how and in what manner and the extent if such

relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff;

7.5 Lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of

any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest

money etc. and, if so, on what grounds.

8. In our opinion, the aforementioned questions are

part of the statutory requirements [See Sections

16(c), 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

and Forms 47/48 of Appendices A to C of 10 the

Code of Civil Procedure]. These requirements have

to be properly pleaded by the parties in their

respective pleadings and proved with the aid of

evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the

Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and

19

accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific

performance depending upon the case made out by

the parties on facts.”

16.In light of the above parameters, facts of this case to

be examined. The mitigating factor which finds favour of

the plaintiff is due proof the agreement to sale by the

learned trial court and as affirmed by this Court. Secondly

the issue of readiness and willingness was decided in

favour of the plaintiff by the trial court as affirmed by this

Court. Thirdly the entire sale consideration of Rs.98,000/-

was paid by the plaintiff. Fourthly the defendant No.1

denied his signature on agreement to sale and stated the

value of suit property to between Rs.1.5 lacs to Rs.2 lacs

which was not found favour to him. Thus, in the opinion of

this Court, the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Kamal Kumar (supra) exists in

favour of plaintiff. Thus, this Court is not inclined to

exercise the discretionary relief in favour of defendant No.1

rather willing to exercise the same in favour of plaintiff.

17.However, this Court is also conscious of the fact that

during pendency of the lis, the value of the suit property

must have increased many folds. Therefore, in light of

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Basavaraj

Vs. Padmavathi & Anr. reported in (2023) 4 SCC 239 and

20

keeping in mind the interest of justice, this Court is inclined

to direct the plaintiff to make an additional amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant No.1 before execution of

sale deed of the suit property.

18.As consequence, the appeal of the

appellant/defendant No.1 is dismissed with the above

observation.

19.Parties to bear their respective cost.

20.Decree be drawn accordingly.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

JUDGE

gouri