Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalaram Kurmi vs Rambabu on 4 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36058
1 SA-1364-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1364 of 2025
LALARAM KURMI
Versus
RAMBABU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anupam Chaturvedi - Panel Lawyer for respondent 2/State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 1
challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2025 passed by Second
District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, in RCA No.01/2019 reversing the
judgment and decree dated 07.12.2018 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I,
Khurai, District Sagar, in Civil Suit No.79A/2013 whereby trial Court
dismissed the suit, however First appellate Court has decreed the respondent
1/plaintiff's suit for specific performance of agreements of sale dated
26.07.2010 (Ex.P/2 & P/3).
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 1 submits that the
respondent 1/plaintiff - Rambabu after receipt of entire sale consideration of
Rs.2,50,000/- executed registered sale deed dated 26.07.2010 (Ex.P/1 &
D/1), in favour of the appellant/defendant 1 and the plaintiff came with false
case that on the date of sale deed, agreements of repurchase dated 26.07.2010
(Ex.P/2 & P/3) were also executed, hence the sale deed was not a real
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36058
2 SA-1364-2025
transaction of sale and it was a transaction of loan. He submits that trial
Court upon due consideration of the entire material available on record
rightly disbelieved the agreements (Ex.P/2 & P/3) while deciding the issue
no.2, but first appellate Court has considered the oral evidence in pick and
choose manner and treating the agreements to be proven documents,
committed illegality in decreeing the suit for specific performance on the
basis of alleged agreements of repurchase. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that as there is no condition in the sale deed regarding transaction of
loan/mortgage, therefore, first appellate Court has committed an illegality in
holding the same to be a transaction of loan. He also submits that the alleged
agreements (Ex.P/2 & P/3) are not registered, therefore, were not admissible
in evidence. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second
appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 1 and perused the
record.
4. Undisputedly, the respondent 1/plaintiff has been bhumiswami of
the suit land and he executed sale deed on 26.07.2010 (Ex.P/1 & D/1) in
respect of land Survey No.226 area 1 hectare. In the present case, only
question is as to whether on the basis of agreements of repurchase (Ex.P/2 &
P/3), the plaintiff is entitled for decree sought by him. In this regard trial
Court has in paragraph 24 of its judgment observed that the defendant has
admitted his signatures on the agreements (Ex.P/2 & P/3), as well as
affixture of his photograph thereon, but the plaintiff has not been able to
prove valid execution of agreements and vide paragraph 25 of its judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36058
3 SA-1364-2025
decided the issue no.2 in negative.
5. First appellate Court on the basis of findings recorded by trial Court
in paragraph 24 and upon due consideration of the oral testimony of the
plaintiff and defendant, held that the agreements (Ex.P/2 & P/3) were
executed on the date of execution of sale deed dated 26.07.2010 and on the
basis of oral evidence available on record held in paragraph 37 of its
judgment that in fact the sale deed was not a real transaction of sale because
entire amount of consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- was not paid and only an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff.
6. Perusal of oral testimony of defendant Lalaram (DW-1) made in
paragraph 9 makes it clear that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by him
before the Registrar and the same statement has been given by his witness
Dharampuri (DW-2) in paragraph 4 of his statement. Meaning thereby entire
sale consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was not paid by the defendant to
the plaintiff.
7. Inspite of the fact that the plaintiff has come with clear case that the
sale deed dated 26.07.2010 (Ex.P/1 & D/1) is not a real transaction of sale
but is a transaction of loan, the defendant has not brought any of the two
witnesses of the sale deed in the witness box, certainly with a view to prove
veracity of the transaction in dispute, which was necessary in the present
case.
8. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant
to the effect that there is no condition of mortgage in the sale deed, is
concerned, in presence of the plaintiff's oral evidence regarding payment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36058
4 SA-1364-2025
consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- instead of Rs.2,50,000/-, which has also been
accepted by the defendant and his witness as has been stated above, in my
considered opinion, first appellate Court does not appear to have committed
any illegality in holding the document of sale to be a transaction of loan,
especially in the circumstances where the suit has been filed within a period
of three years.
9. So far as the argument regarding non registration of the agreements
(Ex.P/2 & P/3) are concerned, in the suit for specific performance, both the
unregistered agreements of sale can be and have rightly been considered in
the evidence, in the light of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
10. In view of the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, first appellate
Court does not appear to have committed any illegality in passing the
impugned judgment and decree.
11. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
