Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Shanti vs Radheshyam on 14 May, 2026
Digitally signed
by ASHISH
ASHISH TIWARI
Date:
TIWARI 2026.05.20
17:07:53
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
S.A. No. 288 of 2019
Smt. Shanti D/o Late Chainsingh Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Jadjada,
Post Marouda, Tahsil And District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At
Qtr. No. 8c, Sadak No. 39, Sector-7 Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
..................(Plaintiff)
--- Appellant
Versus
Radheshyam S/o Chetanram Nishad Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jadjada, Post
Marouda, Tahsil And District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
..........(Defendant)
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent : None for the respondent despite service.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
14.05.2026
1. The instant second appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.10-A/2017.
2. Parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.
3. By the judgment and decree impugned, the learned Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the defendant filed under section 96 of the CPC and the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2017 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 3-B/2013 was set aside.
4. Fact in Short - Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.31,000/- against the defendant with 9% interest and Rs.1500/- notice expenses. As per the -2- pleadings of the plaintiff, she is the sole daughter of Late Chain Singh and has succeeded to all the movable and immovable properties of Late Chain Singh. Her father held 02 acres and 15 decimal of land (in the form of a garden), situated at Patwari Halka No. 51, R.N.I. and Tehsil - Gariyaband, Village - Kochena, District - Gariyaband. During the lifetime of her father, he had leased out the said property to defendant for the year 2004-2005 to 2008-2009at a rent of Rs.7,000/- per year. The defendant failed to make payment of the rent amount for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, which the plaintiff became entitled to receive after the death of her father. Her father died on 24.09.2012, but despite his death and without the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant continued to cultivate/use the suit land in the year 2013. At present amount is Rs.10,000/-. She demanded the said amount by sending a legal notice through her Advocate dated 26.09.2013 to the defendant. Consequently, seeking the reliefs stated above, the civil suit was filed.
5. The defendant appears before the learned trial Court and denied the averments of the plaint. It is pleaded that at about 12 years ago her father had come to Village - Jadjada. A partition had taken place between Chain Singh and Chetan, and the property that fell to the share of Chain Singh was leased/rented to the defendant by Chain Singh. In the year 2009, Chain Singh suffered paralysis, and thereafter the defendant took him into his care and looked after him. Till the year 2012, the defendant expended money for food; cloth and treatment of Chain Singh. Chain Singh died on 24.09.2012 and thereafter in the rituals etc. he expended the money for the year 2013. After year 2013 he is not cultivating the suit land. He has been continuously paying the rent of suit land from the year 2004-2005. He denied that an amount for the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 of rent was not paid by him. He has stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any money from him.
-3-
6. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues as below:-
S.No. विवाद्यक निष्कर्ष
1. क्या वाहिनी प्रतिवादी से 31,000/- रूपये हाँ, आंशिक प्रमाणित
प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी है ? (कं डिका 12 के अनुसार)
2. क्या, वादिमी उक्त राशि पर प्रतिवर्ष 9 हाँ, आंशिक प्रमाणित
प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज प्राप्त (कं डिका 12 के अनुसार) करने की अधिकारी है ?
3. क्या. वादिनी प्रतिवादी से नोटिस व्यय हाँ 1,500/- रूपये प्राप्त करने की अधिकारी (कं डिका 12 के अनुसार) है ?
4. सहायता एवं वाद व्यय । हाँ (कं डिका 13 के अनुसार)
7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and Bhagoli Ram (PW-2). Whereas the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and Lekhram (DW-2). After assessment of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree for Rs.21,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the plaint. The learned trial Court further decreed a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of the legal notice vide judgment dated 17.05.2017.
8. Challenging the same, the defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which, by the impugned judgment and decree, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, on 13.03.2024, the present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
"1. Whether the learned Appellate Court is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to recover said amount only on the basis of absence of agreement between parties which was admitted by respondent.?-4-
2.Whether the learned Appellate Court is justified by allowing First Appeal and dismissing judgment and decree dated 17.05.2017, despite of candid admission of respondent about lease/rent.?"
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, granted a decree for a sum of Rs.21,000/-. The plaintiff was able to prove her case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, which was rightly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been disturbed by the learned First Appellate Court without assigning any cogent or valid reasons. He further submits that in the cross- examination, the defendant himself has admitted that he has neither reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff nor paid back the amount. It is also submitted that the admission of the defendant clearly reveals that till the year 2013 he continued cultivating the suit land. Even though there was no written rent agreement for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, the plaintiff has successfully established that the defendant cultivated the suit property during the said years on rent and failed to pay the agreed amount. Therefore, it is contended that the substantial question of law framed by this Court deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court deserve to be restored.
10. Despite of service none appeared on behalf of the respondent.
11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
12. This Court has to undertake and exercise to answer substantial question of law formulated by this Court. The crux of the substantial question of law is whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court despite there being an admission on -5- the part of the defendant regarding cultivation of the suit land on rent till the year 2013.
13. Perusal of the record would indicate that the learned trial Court, relying upon the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, and also taking into consideration the admission made by the defendant that he was cultivating the suit land till the year 2013, as well as the fact that he neither replied to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff nor paid the outstanding amount, proceeded to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff. Perusal of the record would also indicate that there is no document on record to suggest that there was any rent agreement for the period from 2009 to 2013. The suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiff, who was residing in the village, and according to the evidence of the defendant, he was taking care of the well-being of the plaintiff's father. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she used to visit her father or take care of him. The record would also indicate that rent agreements were executed by defendant No.1 for the years 2004 to 2008; however, no rent agreement exists thereafter. The learned trial Court placed much emphasis on the alleged admission made by the defendant. The defence put forth by the defendant is that there was a rent agreement only till the year 2010, and thereafter the original land owner, Late Chain Singh, returned to the village and was taken care of by the defendant. According to the defendant, he continued cultivating the land on the instructions of Chain Singh and the amount received from cultivation was paid to him. It is further the case of the defendant that, after the death of Chain Singh, he incurred expenses towards the last rites, rituals, and other related ceremonies. The admission made by the defendant formed the basis for passing the decree in favour of the appellant by the learned trial Court.
14. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of the defendant, it would disclose that there is, in fact, no admission made by the defendant that he had not returned the -6- money. In the cross-examination, he only stated that the amount demanded in the notice sent by the plaintiff had not been paid. This merely indicates that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was disputed and remained unpaid; it cannot be construed as an admission that the defendant was liable to pay Rs.31,000/- towards rent of the suit land for the years 2010 to 2013.
15. On a careful scrutiny of the defendant's evidence, it becomes evident that there was, in fact, no admission by the defendant that he had failed to return the money. In his cross-examination, the defendant merely stated that the amount demanded in the notice issued by the plaintiff had not been paid. Such a statement only indicates that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was disputed and remained unpaid; it cannot be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the defendant to pay Rs.31,000/- towards the rent of the suit land for the period from 2010 to 2013.
16. The learned First Appellate Court also observed that the plaintiff herself had stated in her evidence that the cultivation of the suit land was carried out by her father from his own funds, and this statement remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. Thus, upon due appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were not in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were set aside.
17. As discussed above, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on the basis of the alleged admission does not appear to be founded upon a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The said finding has rightly been disturbed by the learned First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment. This Court does not find any good ground to answer the substantial question of law -7- in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the same is answered in the negative against the appellant.
18. Appeal thus fails and dismissed accordingly.
19. Decree be drawn accordingly, no order as to cost.
20. All pending applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
-/ Ashish