Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sandhya Jain vs Ashwini Kumar Patanha on 16 January, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 SA No.2700/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2700 of 2024
SMT. SANDHYA JAIN
Versus
ASHWINI KUMAR PATANHA AND OTHERS
Appearance
Shri R.P. Khare- Advocate for the appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2024 passed by IV District
Judge, Satna, District Satna in RCA No.99/2019 affirming the judgment and
decree dated 14.08.2018 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Satna, District
Satna in civil suit No.30-A/2012 whereby courts below have concurrently
dismissed appellant/plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement of
sale dated 22.01.2009 (Ex.P/1) instituted on 17.08.2012.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that in respect of a
land area 325 sq.ft., the parties entered into an agreement of sale for
consideration of Rs.7,55,000/- and in pursuance of such agreement the plaintiff
paid an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- to the defendants 1-2 and only an amount of
Rs.30,000/- was to be paid. It is also alleged that the defendant 1 on the date of
agreement dated 22.01.2009 itself handed over vacant possession of the land to
the plaintiff. As the defendants 1-2 did not inform to the plaintiff and her
husband about their mutation, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed.
Lastly on 15.06.2012 (Ex.P/4) the plaintiff requested the defendants 1-2 to
execute the sale deed, but she came to know on 12.07.2012 that the defendants
1-2 have sold the land to the defendant 3 by executing registered sale deed on
26/27/29.03.2012 (Ex.P/3) whereas the defendant 3 had entire knowledge about
the agreement in question and possession of the plaintiff over the land. Learned
counsel submits that the plaintiff by adducing evidence, has proved execution of
agreement as well as payment of advance consideration of Rs.7,25,000/-, but
courts below have wrongly held that the execution of agreement (Ex.P/1) is not
proved. He also submits that Courts below have committed illegality in holding
that plaintiff was not ready and willing to get executed the sale deed. With these
submissions he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
4. Alleged agreement of sale dated 22.01.2009 shows that it was executed in
respect of the land area 325 sq.ft. for consideration of Rs.7,55,000/- and an
amount of Rs.7,25,000/- is said to have have been paid in advance to the
plaintiff. The agreement also recites delivery of possession of land to the
plaintiff. Apparently the agreement is on stamp of Rs.100/- which has not been
found proved by learned courts below. Courts below have also found that the
alleged amount of advance consideration has also not been paid by the plaintiff
to the defendants.
5. The agreement is dated 22.01.2009 whereas the suit in question was
instituted on 17.08.2012 which prima facie appears to be barred by limitation.
Courts below have considered that a regd. power of attorney was executed by
defendant 1 in favour of husband of plaintiff on 14.01.2009 (Ex.P/2) which was
in existence on the date of agreement of sale dtd.22.01.2009, as such held the
agreement in question to be doubtful. Further, trial Court in paragraph 14 of its
judgment has observed that plaintiff herself has shown her unawareness about
the agreement of sell and has specially stated that it was not written in front of
her and entire act of execution of agreement was not done in her presence. The
courts below have also found that the plaintiff has not been able to prove
readiness and willingness to get executed the sale deed in her favour.
6. Upon perusal of the record and in view of delay caused by the plaintiff in
filing of the suit, in my considered opinion courts below do not appear to have
committed any illegality in dismissing the suit.
7. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, instant second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
