^ • Second AppeaS No.2SS of 2005 Sardar Satpas Slngh, about 60 years, s/o Late yidyai Singh, r/o Mohalia Kedarpur, Church Road, Tov^n Ambikapur, Tehsil & DlstrJct ResDondent Defsndant Ambikapur, Surguja, Versu^ Jainath Shukla ^.fi<5. Died and 1(A) Smt.Saroj Shukla, W/o. Lats Jainath Shukla, aged about 74 years, 1(3) Sachin Dov Shukla, S/o. Late Jainsth Shukla, aged about 50 years, 1(C) Jaldev Shukla, S/o« Late Jalnath Shukia, aged about 48 years, All R/o. §a^ohalia. Anand Nagar, Ralpur, R^st Ralpur Tahsil and Dlstrict Ralpur (Second Appeai under Sectlon 100 of the CPC) Mr.SanJay K-Agrawai, oounsei for the appellant. i^r.SunJE Tripathl wjth yr.Rahul ivlishra & IVlrj^anoj Jaiswa.l, counsol for the respondents No/1(A) to 1(C). (SB: Hon'bie fvlr. T.F. Sharrr.a, J.) (30-9-2011) By this socond appoai under Soction 100 of tho Code of .Clvll Procedure, 1908, the appeiiant has challenged ths isgaiiSy & propristy of ths judgment & decree .dated 10.2.2005 passed by the First Additlonal Distrlct Judge, Amblkapur, in Clvll Appeai No.46,A/04, affirmlng the judgment & decree 14.10.2004 passed by the 5 Civij Judge Ciass-11, Amblkapur, in Civil Sult No.20A/03, whereby the sult filed cn behalf cf tno appojlanyplalntlff for dedaratlon of tltlo on the basis of agreoment to soll has been dismlssed» .^y^s ^ ?1?^ ^ ^k^ss^. 9 ^:s^^^ k ^» ^v 2. I havo heard learnod counsol for the parties, perused the judgment and decrse impugnod, judgmsnt and dscree of the trial Court snd records of tho Courts boiow. 3» As per pleading of tho partios, tho present appeiiant/plajntifr has ontered into agroement to seli (purchase) of tho land from origlnal respondent/dofondant Jainath Snykla and obtalnod possossion. Consideration of was Rs.54,001/-. Sult was flnally dtemlssod^ was also dismissed. 4, Agreornent to seli may bo good dofence to protect the possession under Soctlon 53A of the Transfer of Proporty Act, 1882 and on the basis of such agroement, purchasor may be brought the suit for spQcific perfornfiance of contract, but not for declaration of tltle. 5,, Whjte dismlsslng tho suit and appeai flied on behalf of tho appeliant/plasntiff, both ths Courts beiow hav© not commltted any jjjegallty. E do not find a.ny subst8Rco in tho present' appeai invoiving anysubstantial quostlon of lav^ S. Consequentiy, th@ appeai is llabte to be djsmlssed it is hereby at the motlon Itself. No order as to coste, Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^