News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 213 | 2026:CGHC:14172-DB
March 25, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has overturned a trial court ruling that had granted specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of land in Durg district, holding that the claim was not supported by reliable evidence.
In a judgment delivered on March 25, 2026, a division bench comprising Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed an appeal filed by Satyadeo Prasad Sinha, setting aside the 2018 decree passed by a Durg court in favour of Prabhunath Singh.
The case arose from a civil suit filed in 2014, where the plaintiff claimed that both parties had jointly purchased land in village Jamul after collecting over ₹1.15 crore from prospective buyers for a housing project. Although the land was registered in the defendant’s name, the plaintiff alleged that he had an equal interest in it.
According to the plaintiff, an oral agreement was reached on September 1, 2012, under which the defendant agreed to execute a sale deed for ₹40 lakh. The plaintiff claimed to have paid ₹16 lakh as part of this arrangement and sought enforcement of the agreement, along with protection of his possession.
The defendant denied the existence of any such agreement, contending that the amount received was part of a loan transaction and that the plaintiff had filed the suit to avoid repayment.
The trial court accepted the plaintiff’s version and granted a decree for specific performance, recognizing his interest in the property and restraining the defendant from interfering with possession.
On appeal, the High Court found significant inconsistencies and lack of proof in the plaintiff’s case.
The bench noted that although oral agreements can be legally enforceable, the burden of proof is considerably higher. In this case, the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a concluded agreement or its essential terms.
Crucially, the two witnesses cited by the plaintiff did not confirm that any oral agreement was executed on the claimed date. The Court also pointed out contradictions in the plaintiff’s pleadings, including indications that the agreement may have been written rather than oral. Further, the Court observed that the alleged payment of ₹16 lakh began nearly a year after the supposed agreement, weakening the credibility of the claim.
The Court also addressed the plaintiff’s claim of interest in land registered in the defendant’s name. It held that such a claim would fall within the scope of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which bars claims over benami properties. The bench found that the trial court had erred in recognizing the plaintiff’s interest despite this statutory bar.
During the appeal, an issue arose regarding alleged interpolation in the plaint suggesting adverse possession. A forensic examination and expert committee were unable to determine who inserted the disputed text.
The Court allowed deletion of the disputed portion but declined to initiate criminal proceedings, noting that such action was not necessary in the interests of justice. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement or his entitlement to relief, the High Court set aside the trial court’s decree in its entirety. No costs were awarded.
Case Reference : FA No. 676 of 2018, Satyadeo Prasad Sinha vs. Prabhunath Singh and Another; Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prateek Sinha, Ms. Kajal Chandra and Mr. Kaif Ali Rizvi, Advocates; for Respondent No.1: Mr. B.P. Singh with Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocates; for Respondent No.2/State: Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General, with Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer.
