Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramvati Bai Kewat vs Smt. Tara Gotia on 9 June, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25427
1 FA-242-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF JUNE, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 242 of 2017
SMT. RAMVATI BAI KEWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. TARA GOTIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anurag Kumar Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Ashok Pali - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri Sandeep Dubey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.
JUDGMENT
This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been filed by appellants/defendants No.1 to 4 being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 10.2.2017 passed by learned Vth Additional
District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.15-A/2013 [Smt.Tara Gotiya and
another Vs. Smt.Ramwati and others] whereby the suit of the
respondents/plaintiffs seeking relief of specific performance of contract
regarding suit property has been decreed.
2. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 04.4.2017
3. Learned counsel for the appellants at the time of arguments stated
that though there is ground in instant appeal that there is no written
agreement between the parties, but there was a written agreement. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25427
2 FA-242-2017
further submitted that thumb impression of the appellants was taken on the
blank papers and not on typed papers and his party was assured by
respondents that amount of consideration shall be paid later on but
subsequently the plaintiffs refused to purchase the suit land.
4. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the appellants failed
to draw the attention of this Court where in cross-examination plaintiffs
admitted that they were not willing to purchase the suit property after a week.
It is further submitted that there is no proof of payment of amount of
consideration of Rs.10 lacs by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that by
two cheques amount was paid and after getting permission of the learned trial
Court to lead secondary evidence the plaintiff exhibited photocopy of the
cheque as the originals were in possession of the plaintiff. Photocopies of
two cheques have been exhibited as Exhibits-P/24 & P/25, which supports
judgment and decree of the trial Court.
6. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. The question in this first appeal is whether any
interference in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is
warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed
following issues and after recording evidence arrived at the findings which
are mentioned below as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25427
3 FA-242-2017
. वाद द िन कष
1 या ितवाद मांक 1 से 4 ने दनांक 16-06-2008 को भूिम मांक 21/1 मा णत
रकबा 0.79 एकड़ को वाद गण को 19,50,000/- पये म व य करने का
िल खत अनुबंध िन पा दत कया है ?
वक प म
या ितवाद गण ने वाद गण से मा 32,50,000/- पये म ववा दत भूिम अ मा णत
का व य करने का मौ खक अनुबंध कया था ?
2. या वाद गण ने ितवाद गण को उ दनांक को चेक के मा यम से मा णत
10,00,000/- पये अि म रािश बयाना के प म दया था ?
3. या वाद ारा अनुबंध के अपने भाग को पूण करने के िलए सदै व त पर मा णत
एवं सहमत होते हु ए भी ितवाद गण ने अनुबंध का अपना भाग अपूण रखा
?
4. या वाद ववा दत भूिम का व य प िन पा दत करने क सहायता ा मा णत
करने का पा है ?
5. या वाद ने उिचत मू यांकन कर पया यायशु क अदा कया ? मा णत
6. अ य सहायता एवं यय ? वाद ड कया
8. In the trial Court the suit of the plaintiff was for specific
performance of contract (Exhibit-P/1) regarding the suit property as
mentioned therein and the consideration of which was at Rs.19,50,000/- and
it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that they were ready and willing to carry out
their part of agreement and paid Rs.10 lacs by two cheques as earnest money
but defendant neither sold the suit property to them as per agreement nor
encashed the cheques, whereas the defendant stated that signature was
obtained on a blank papers by cheating and no amount of sale consideration
or earnest money was paid to them.
9. It is seen that in the trial Court Tara Gontiya has examined herself
as PW.1 and Pradeep Gontiya as PW.2. She exhibited agreement to sale
(Exhibit-P/1), registered notice to Smt.Ramvati & Shri Ratan Kewat
(Exhibit-P/2), reply of notice (Exhibit-P/3), Telegram dt.15.9.2008 sent by
plaintiffs to the defendants to remain present before the Sub-Registrar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25427
4 FA-242-2017
(Exhibit-P/4), receipts (Exhibits-P/5 & P/6), Objection application to Sub-
Registrar, Jabalpur (Exhibit-P/7), receipts (Exhibit-P/8 to P/10), public notice
(Exhibit-P/11), reply to notice (Exhibit-P/12), registered notice by plaintiffs
(Exhibit-P/13), registered post A/D receipts (Exhibits-P/14 to P/17), copies
of other registered letters (Exhibits-P/18 to P/21), Bank Passbooks (Exhibit-
P/22 & P/23), photocopies of cheques (Exhibits-P/24 & P/25) and Khasra
copy (Exhibit-P/26).
10. The defendants have examined Ratan Kumar Kewat as DW.1 and
Anil Kumar Kewat as DW.2. They exhibited postal receipts (D/1 to D/4),
newspaper publication (Exhibit-D/5), Khasra P-II (Exhibit-D/6), Rin Pustika
(Exhibit-D/7) and Khasra of 2008-09 (Exhibit-D/8).
11. On perusal of statement of the plaintiff it is seen that there is no
admission by the plaintiff, on the basis of which the finding of the learned
trial Court can be altered regarding agreement (Exhibit-P/1). Even there is
nothing on record by way of evidence of defendant, on the basis of which
this appeal can be allowed. Because, even at the time of arguments the
statement was made that plaintiffs cheated the defendants and made her to
fix thumb impression on Exhibit-P/1 when it was blank but this fact has not
been proved by the defendant. There is no Police report regarding cheating.
Hence, there is no ground to alter the finding of fact recorded in respect of
Exhibit-P/1 which is rightly held as proved including receiving of two
cheques of Rs.10 lacs and receiving of cheques cannot be disbelieved on the
ground that cheques were not encashed, therefore, it can be presumed that it
was not plaintiffs but defendants who changed their minds for not selling the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25427
5 FA-242-2017
suit property to plaintiffs as on the price of Rs.19,50,000/- as per Exhibit-
P/1. The trial Court in its judgment held that defendant to execute the sale
deed after sale consideration of Rs.19,50,000/- is paid in terms of agreement
(Exhibit-P/1). Therefore, when the only ground raised at the time of final
arguments that plaintiffs cheated the defendants in affixing her thumb
impression on blank papers and defendant was illiterate and when this fact of
cheating is not proved by the defendant, as the burden is on the plaintiffs to
prove the fact of making defendant affix the thumb impression on blank
pages by cheating then this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the
appeal.
12. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The
judgment and decree of the trial Court is affirmed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
V. JUDGE
RM
