1 2025:CGHC:32988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 314 of 2021 Smt. Chandrakanti Pradhan W/o Nirakar Pradhan Aged About 57 Years Pradhan D/o Late Jadhabo Caste Kolta R/o Village Raypali Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant / plaintiff versus Smt. Tikeshwari Pradhan Wd/o Jadhabo Caste Kolta Aged About 49 Years Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Nawapar (B), Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/defendant (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : None present. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 10/07/2025 Heard on admission. 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by District Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2020, reversing the judgment & decree dated 25.02.2020 passed by 3rd Civil Judge, Class-2, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 31- B/2018. [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint]. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that defendant is step mother of plaintiff. After death of her father namely Jadhabo on 26.01.2009, his land i.e. total area 9.668 hectare situated at village Nawapara (B), Revenue Circle Pussour, Tahsil Pussour, District Raigarh was succeeded by plaintiff, defendant and other two sisters of plaintiff, thereafter, they mutually divided that land and started cultivating on their respective shares. Since khata batwara was not effected between them, therefore, defendant remained Numberdar. As such, the plaintiff and her other sisters after harvesting the paddy sold the same to the Society and the amount thereof was deposited in the Bank account of defendant, as she was Numberdar of joint family. 2.1 Leanred counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff further submits that in the year 2016-2017, plaintiff has sold 88 quintals paddy of her share, against which an amount of Rs.1,29,360/- was deposited in the Bank account of defendant, which she had transferred in Bank account of plaintiff, but when bonus of said 88 quintals paddy sold by plaintiff was deposited in the Bank account of defendant, then despite repeated requests, she did not give the same to the plaintiff. This fact has been proved by plaintiff by examining her husband – Nirakar Pradhan under the authority of Special Power of Attorney (Ex. P-10) executed by plaintiff in his favour and her two witnesses namely Shubhkaran Pradhan (PW-2) & Nityanand Chauhan (PW-3). Various complaints made by plaintiff to the authorities against the defendant has also been proved by her, based on which, learned trial Court granted decree in favour of plaintiff, but without properly appreciating the evidence adduced by plaintiff and her witnesses, learned first appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by her, 3 therefore, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial question of law. 3. It is clear from the evidence adduced by both the parties that defendant is step mother of plaintiff and they have joint holding alongwith other two sisters of plaintiff. Defendant herself has admitted in her deposition that after death of her husband – Jadhabo, who was father of plaintiff, his property was mutually partitioned between them and they are cultivating their respective shares. But joint holding has not been divided between them on record, therefore, paddy grown on lands of their respective share were sold by them and sale consideration of share of plaintiff and her sisters are deposited in the account of defendant because she was Numberdar of whole lands. It is case of plaintiff that after selling of 88 quintals of paddy by her from her share of land, sale consideration of the same i.e. Rs. 1,29,360/- was deposited in the account of defendant. Subsequently, when bonus of Rs.26,400/- for aforesaid paddy was deposited in the Bank Account of defendant, then the same has not been given to the plaintiff, whereas, defendant has not only pleaded, but has also deposed that she had given all the amount of plaintiff’s share alongwith bonus to the plaintiff, that too, in presence of Ugrasen Pradhan (DW-2), which has also been supported by Ugrasen Pradhan (DW-2) in his deposition. 4. Thus, as per pleading and deposition of defendant – Tikeshwari Pradhan (DW-1), she had given impugned bonus amount to the plaintiff, which has also been supported by Ugrasen Pradhan (DW-2), thus, said transaction was held between plaintiff and defendant. To rebut this evidence, plaintiff ought to have examined herself, but she has neither entered in the 4 witness box nor examined herself, rather she has examined her husband on her behalf on the strength of special power of attorney. 5. It is settled law that Power of Attorney holders cannot give evidence about facts which are not within the personal knowledge of the persons represented by them. 6. In the matter of Manisha Mahendra Gala and others Vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and others & another connected case 1 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the scope of reliability of deposition of the person, who has deposed on the basis of power of attorney executed by him, after considering various judgments, have held as under :- 28. The law as understood earlier was that a General Power of Attorney holder though can appear, plead and act on behalf of a party he represents but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party represented by him as no one can delegate his power to appear in the witness box to another party. However, subsequently in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Limited 2 , this Court held that the Power of Attorney holder can maintain a plaint on behalf of the person he represents provided he has personal knowledge of the transaction in question. It was opined that the Power of Attorney holder or the legal representative should have knowledge about the transaction in question so as to bring on record the truth in relation to the grievance or the offence. However, to resolve the controversy with regard to the powers of the General Power of Attorney holder to depose on behalf of 1 (2024) 6 SCC 130 2 (2005) 2 SCC 217 5 the person he represents, this Court upon consideration of all previous relevant decisions on the aspect including that of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra 3 concluded by upholding the principle of law laid down in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) and clarified that Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court but he must have witnessed the transaction as an agent and must have due knowledge about it. The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation. 29. It is, therefore, settled in law that Power of Attorney holder can only depose about the facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents or about the facts that may have transpired much before he entered the scene……………” 7. In the instant case, though Nirakar Pradhan, who is husband of plaintiff, has deposed on the strength of Special Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in his favour that bonus amount has not been given by the defendant, 3 (2014) 11 SCC 790 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 343 6 but when defendant – Smt. Tikeshwari Pradhan (DW-1) and her witnesses namely Ugrasen Pradhan (DW-2) have deposed that defendant had given the amount of bonus to the plaintiff herself, then this fact ought to have been rebutted by plaintiff herself. Defendant & her witness Ugrasen Pradhan (DW- 2) have not stated that while giving the aforesaid amount, Nirakar Pradhan (PW-1) was present there, therefore, on the basis of deposition of husband of plaintiff i.e. Nirakar Pradhan (PW-1), deposition of defendant and her witnesses that the defendant has given the amount of bonus to the plaintiff, cannot be disregarded. Rather, in absence of deposition of plaintiff herself, deposition of her husband – Narakar Pradhan is not found to be reliable and deposition of other two witnesses, namely Shubhkaran Pradhan (PW-2) & Nityanand Chauhan (PW-3) with regard to non-payment of bonus amount to the plaintiff by defendant is based on hearsay evidence, hence, it is also not helpful to the plaintiff.[ 8. In view of foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this appeal. Consequently, second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to cost (s). 9. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.21 16:13:34 +0530 7