CHANDRAMOUL SHUKLA Vs. RAMVISHWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 11.2.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No.21- A/1996 by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Satna, by which reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.28-B/1995 by the Civil Judge Class I,Satna, the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

(2.) Since the claim was granted against the respondent No.2 only by the learned trial court and the claim made against the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the trial court, a cross appeal was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs before the lower appellate court, when the appeal was preferred by the respondent No.2 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court aforesaid. Since that cross appeal was also dismissed, hence, this appeal. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were the landlords and owners of the land in dispute. The respondent No.1, accompanied with the respondent No.2, approached them for the purpose of granting lease of the land for the purposes of cultivation. Such a lease was written on a piece of paper by the respondent No.2 in his own handwriting on 12.11.1994 and on a revenue stamp of 20 paise such a lease was signed by the appellant No.3 as an agent of appellant No.1 and 2 and himself. It was agreed under the said lease that the land, commonly known as Bada Bandh, is given on lease for the purposes of cultivation to respondent No.1 on the terms that he will pay 150 bags of wheat to the appellants as their share out of the crops, which was to be sown and cultivated at his own expenses by the respondent No.1. For the purposes of irrigation, facility was to be taken from the Well of one Kedar Prasad Shukla by the respondent No.1. Two witnesses have signed the said document. It was alleged in the plaint that after cultivation certain crops were received by the respondents, but only 50 bags of wheat was given to the appellants and rest of the crops were not delivered nor any amount in cash was paid to the appellants. It was averred in the plaint that though the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was also a partner in such lease with respondent No.1/defendant No.1, but he too has not given any crops to the appellants thereby a loss of Rs.40,000/- was caused to the appellants. Accordingly, with all expenses, an amount of Rs.41,000/- was claimed against the respondents/defendants.