Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kushwaha vs Ramkaran Meena on 5 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 SA-1233-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 1233 of 2025
(RAVI KUSHWAHA Vs RAMKARAN MEENA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 05-08-2025
Shri Ghanshyam Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ambuj Jain - Advocate for the respondent 1.
Ms. Preeti Pathak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent 2/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
Appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing on the following
substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case both the
Courts below have committed an illegality in decreeing the suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 10/6/2020 (Ex.P/1) in respect of an
unspecified land area 0.405 hectare of survey No.34/3/1 total area 1.214
hectare?
2. Whether both the Courts below have committed an illegality in
relying upon the agreement to sell without examination of notary, who had
notarized the agreement dated 10/6/2020?
3. Whether both the Courts below have committed an illegality in
placing reliance on the agreement to sell dated 10/6/2020 in absence of its
proof in accordance with Section 47/67 of the Evidence Act?
4. Whether both the Courts below have committed an illegality in
accepting the case of plaintiff regarding payment of cash amount of
Rs.3,44,000/- as advance consideration just contrary to the provision
2 SA-1233-2025
contained in Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act."
Also heard on IA No.9742/2025, which is an application under Order
XLI Rule 5 of C.P.C.
Learned counsel Shri Jain accepts notice of final hearing and IA
No.9742/2025 on behalf of the respondent 1 and prays for and is granted four
weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid application.
In the meantime, effect, operation and execution of the impugned
judgment and decree shall remain stayed until further orders.
List for further consideration of IA No.9742/2025 after filing of reply
by the respondent 1.
However, it is also pertinent to mention here that from the record, it is
clear that agreement dated 10/6/2020 (Ex.P/1) is an agreement of sale of
agricultural land for consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- out of which advance
amount of Rs.3,44,000/- is said to have been paid in cash by the plaintiff to
the defendant. Since, in pursuance of sale agreement, registered sale deed
was not executed, therefore, on the basis of said agreement, instant suit was
filed for specific performance of agreement which has been decreed by
Courts below. In the case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational
Institution Vs. B.Gunashekar & Another in Civil Appeal No.5200 of 2025
dated 16/04/2025. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"18.1....... When there is a law in place, the same has to
be enforced. Most times, such transactions go unnoticed
or not brought to the knowledge of the income tax
authorities. It is settled position that ignorance in fact is
excusable but not the ignorance in law. Therefore, we
deem it necessary to issue the following directions:
(A) Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that
Rs.2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any
3 SA-1233-2025
transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the
jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the
transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the
Income Tax Act, if any,
(B) Whenever, any such information is received either
from the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income
Tax authority shall take appropriate steps by following
the due process in law,
(C) Whenever, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is
claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for
conveyance of any immovable property in a document
presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-
Registrar shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional
Income Tax Authority who shall follow the due process
in law before taking any action,
(D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any
Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or
above has been paid by way of consideration in any
transaction relating to any immovable property from
any other source or during the course of search or
assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering
authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief
Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate
disciplinary action against such officer who failed to
intimate the transactions."
As such, Principal Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to
comply with the aforesaid directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decision by intimating the transaction to the concerning Income
Tax Department, within a period of 15 days.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
