Chattisgarh High Court
Jai Loknath Baba Land Devlopers ... vs Shyam Yadav on 29 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MA No. 94 of 2017
Judgment Reserved on : 25/02/2022
Judgment Delivered on : 29/04/2022
Jai Loknath Baba Land Developers Pvt.Ltd. Company, Through
Director Smt. Jagdish Kour Peri, aged 41 years, W/o Shri Peri
Chandrashekhar D/o Shri Atam Singh, registered under the
Company Act 1956. Registered Office at LiG 108, Tilak Nagar,
Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Shyam Yadav, W/o Late Shri Manrakhan Yadav, Aged About
33 Years.
2. Smt. Ranu Yadav, W/o Late Shri Ramavtar Yadav, Aged About
28 Years.
3. Minor Ku. Triveni Yadav, D/o Late Shri Ramavtar Yadav, Aged
About 8 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Ranu Yadav,
W/o Late Shri Ramavtar Yadav.
4. Radha Yadav, D/o Late Shri Manrakhan Yadav, Aged About 38
Years.
5. Smt. Mina Yadav, D/o Late Shri Manrakhan Yadav, Aged About
60 Years.
All are R/o Shukrvari Bazar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tehsil And
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur, Tehsil And
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7. M/s Reliable Infra, Through Partner Koustubh Sharma, S/o N.K.
Sharma, R/o Shyam Dixit Complex, K.K. Road, Moudhapara,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Anand Prakash Sharma and Mr.
Manish Thakur, Advocates.
For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Sr.
&7 Advocate with Mr. Keshav Dewangan,
Advocate.
For State/R-6 : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Order
29/04/2022
1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this miscellaneous
appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
18.05.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.112-A/2015 by the 4 th
Additional District Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District
Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional District
Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff
had filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract
dated 10.08.2010 executed between respondents/defendants
No. 1 to 5 and appellant/plaintiff for sale of land bearing
Khasra No. 882/1 area 0.420 hectare, Khasra No.884 area
4.770 hectare, total two khasra area of which is 5.190
hectare, about 13 acres, situated at village Nakta, P.H.
No.74/13, R.I. Circle Mandir Hasoud Tehsil - Arang, District
Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land')
for sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. According to
the agreement, the appellant/plaintiff's company executed it
on 10.08.2010 and the same got notarized on 12.08.2010.
Thereafter, on 11.09.2010, land development agreement was
also executed between them, which was duly registered on
14.06.2010, got the possession of disputed land, completed
planning work and also constructed the boundary wall.
During this, the respondents/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were
asked to execute the sale deed of the disputed land after
receiving balance amount of the disputed land, but the
respondent/defendant No.1-Shyam Yadav expressed that
they have to purchase another agricultural land out of the
amount of sale consideration of the disputed land. Since, the
deal to buy the land elsewhere has not been done, the
respondents/defendants do not want to sell the disputed land
and in due time, the sale deed of the disputed land would be
executed in favor of the appellant/plaintiff's company after
getting the balance amount of sale consideration. Till date
the appellant/plaintiff has made payment of Rs.45,00,000/- to
respondents/defendants as advance against the disputed
land, but excuses have been made by the
respondent/defendant No.1 for execution and registration of
the disputed land owing to non performance of deal to
purchase the land elsewhere by him. Pursuant to the sale
agreement, the appellant/plaintiff obtained the possession of
the disputed land and Rs. 25,00,000/- has been spent by him
for leveling the ground, constructed boundary wall, boring,
excavation work etc. around the land and the license was
duly obtained for the construction of the colony for
residential purpose as also obtained permission for approach
road while getting the land diverted. In the meanwhile, on
07.04.2012, a notice has been sent by the
respondents/defendants No. 1 to 5 stating therein that in
terms of the agreement dated 10.08.2010, the said
agreement has been canceled due to non execution of sale
deed of the disputed land by the appellant/plaintiff's
company within the prescribed time period of 6 months,
whereas the fact is that till 29.11.2011 an additional amount
of Rs.30,00,000/- has been taken by the
respondent/defendant No.1 for keeping the agreement in
force. The respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 were requested
several times by the appellant/plaintiff's company for
execution of sale deed. On 07.06.2012, a reminder letter was
also sent to the respondent/defendant No.1, to which the
respondent/defendant No.1, vide his letter dated 18.06.2012,
refused to execute and register the sale deed of the disputed
land. In the meanwhile, on 10.10.2012,
respondent/defendant No.1 had published a public notice in
daily news-paper with regard to illegal sale of the disputed
land, thereafter, a report was made by the appellant/plaintiff
in the police station Gol Bazar, pursuant to which, an FIR
under Section 420/34 of the IPC has been registered against
the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 5. The said case is
pending before the ACJM, Raipur as Criminal Case
No.1192/2013. The respondents/defendants are continuously
making efforts to sell the disputed land to someone else,
therefore, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the civil suit as also
filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for
grant of interim injunction.
3. The respondents/defendants, in their written statements,
refuted all the allegations made against them and averred &
blamed the appellant/plaintiff for non execution of sale deed
stating that he is not willing to make registry of disputed land
within stipulated period of six months and plaintiff did not
pay the sale consideration. It has been also averred that the
agreement has been drafted in English and no Hindi format of
the same provided to them, therefore, the suit is not
maintainable. They have sent a notice through their advocate
for termination of agreement, thereafter, a false case has
been registered by the appellant/plaintiff against the
defendant.
4. The learned trial Court, after hearing argument of respective
parties and considering the material on record, dismissed the
application filed by the Appellant/plaintiff. Hence, this
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant/plaintiff submits that the
learned trial Court has not considered the fact of execution of
agreement, according to which, the possession of the
disputed land was given to the Appellant/plaintiff for
development purpose and separate agreement has been
executed between the Appellant/plaintiff and
respondents/defendants No. 1 to 5. Thus, without taking back
the possession of disputed land, how it could be given to
defendant No. 7 just mentioning the fact that sale deed has
been executed on 11.12.2015, which the learned trial Court
has completely relied upon to decide the matter. He further
submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
the fact that the plaintiff is having complete possession of the
disputed land which is evident from the document that has
been admitted by the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 5.
The Appellant is always ready and willing to perform his part.
Learned counsel also submits that the Appellant/plaintiff has
carried out land development work and invested huge
amount and has prima-facie proved the case in his favour. It
has been further submitted that the learned trial Court has
completely ignored the fact that on 29.11.2011, the
respondent No. 1 has taken additional sum of Rs.30,00,000/-
to keep the agreement in force. It is next submitted that the
conduct of the respondents/defendants have not been
property appreciated which clearly show that they did not
send any kind of notice for performance of agreement. They
directly sent a notice of termination of agreement after a long
time i.e. on 07.04.2012. This very much conduct of the
respondents reflect their only objective and motive to sell the
disputed land to someone else knowing that delay on their
part is the reason of non performance of agreement. As
such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and
injunction may be granted in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.
In addition to this, learned counsel also submits that the
respondents/defendants may be restrained to create any
third party interest of the disputed land.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective
respondents supporting the impugned order submit that the
appellant/plaintiff has filed the civil suit after five years of
agreement dated 10.08.2010, which is clearly time barred
suit. As per agreement dated 10.08.2010, sale deed ought to
have been executed within six months but the
appellant/plaintiff never tried to execute the sale deed. The
petitioner company gave cheque of Rs.7,50,000/-, which was
dishonoured by the Bank and never spent Rs.25,00,000/- for
development work of the disputed land. Learned counsel
further submits that on 10.05.2011, the appellant/plaintiff
prepared Bank Development Agreement in English,
translated copy of which was not provided to them, therefore
also, the suit is not maintainable. Learned counsel also
submits that on 18.06.2012, a reminder was sent to the
appellant company for termination of agreement, thereafter,
an FIR was lodged against the respondents and filed this time
barred suit. There is no prima-facie case in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff and the learned trial Court has rightly
dismissed the application of the appellant/plaintiff.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
8. The appellant/plaintiff filed a copy of mutual agreement
dated 11.09.2016, which was executed between the
appellant/plaintiff company M/s Jai Loknath Baba Land
Developers Pvt. Ltd. and A.K. Daga. The learned trial Court,
on the basis of documents available, recorded the finding
that as per the agreement dated 10.08.2010, the
appellant/plaintiff had to pay remainder/balance amount to
the respondents/defendants within a period of six months
from the date of agreement but the appellant/plaintiff failed
to do so and, as such, the said agreement dated 10.08.2010
looses it efficacy and on 11.12.2015, respondents/defendants
No. 1 to 5 sold the entire disputed land to respondent No.7 by
registered sale deed. The appellant/plaintiff filed the civil suit
on 11.02.2015. The learned trial Court also observed that
appellant/plaintiff did not file any document showing their
possession on the disputed land, thus, prima-facie, case and
balance of convenience does not appear to be in favour of
the appellant/plaintiff.
9. The appellant/plaintiff has filed two documents one is mutual
agreement dated 11.09.2016 and agreement dated
10.09.2010 but did not file any document showing extension
of agreement dated 10.08.2010. That apart, the
appellant/plaintiff did not file civil suit for specific
performance of contract within three years from the
agreement and has filed the suit in the year 2015, and during
the pendency of suit, the disputed land was sold to
respondent No.7. As such, considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the finding recorded by
the learned trial Court does not appear to be illegal or
perverse and has rightly dismissed the application of the
applicant/plaintiff. The finding recorded by the learned trail
Court is in accordance with the law and basic principle of
injunction.
10. Appeal thus being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed
and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
PKD Judge
