Moirangthem Loken Singh vs Moirangthem Lalit Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 110 Mani

                                                                           Item No. 9
                                                         (through video conferencing)


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                             AT IMPHAL

                  CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021

   Moirangthem Loken Singh, aged about 79 years, S/o late
   Moirangthem Kriti Singh, resident of Sagolband Tera Sapam
   Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur.

                                                                   Petitioner.....

                                  Vs.

   1. Moirangthem Lalit Singh, aged about 76 years, S/o Late
      Moirangthem Kriti Singh;

   2. Moirangthem Surchandra Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
      Moirangthem Kriti Singh;

   3. Moirangthem Ibempishak Devi, aged about 61 years, D/o Late
      Moirangthem Kriti Singh;

   4. Moirangthem Ibomcha Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Late
      Moirangthem Kriti Singh;

   5. Moirangthem Daniel Singh, aged about 41 years, S/o Late
      Moirangthem Lalit Singh;

   6. Moirangthem Deepak Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Late
      Moirangthem Lalit Singh, :-

             ........All are residents of Sagolband Tera Sapam Leirak,
             P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
             Manipur.
                                                             Respondents......



                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
    For the petitioner                 :   Mr. N. Sashikanta, Advocate
    For the respondents                :   Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, Advocate

    Date of Order                      :   21.04.2021




CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021                                        Page 1
                                      ORDER

[1] Heard Mr. N. Sashikanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and

Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] This revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution,

arises out of the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned District Judge,

Imphal West, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2020. The said appeal was filed

against the order dated 26.02.2020 of the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Imphal West-II, in Judl. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2018 in O.S. No. 2 of 2018.

[3] The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit while the

respondents are the defendants therein. Parties shall be referred to hereinafter

as arrayed before the Trial Court.

The suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title, ownership

and possession over the homestead land, admeasuring 0.064 acres out of 0.32

acres under Patta No. 1654(new)/85/2408 No. 119(new) covered by CS Dag

No. 119 (new)/45/369 (old); a declaration that the defendants had no right,

title or authority over the suit land; to declare that defendants No. 1,5 & 6 got

entered their names through order dated 03.07.2017, by concealment and

suppression of material facts by playing fraud on the Court as well as the

plaintiff; to declare the order dated 09.09.2016 and the order dated

03.07.2017 passed by the Ld. SDC/Imphal West(C) in Misc. Case No.

637/SDC/IW(C) and Misc. Case No. 450/SDC/IW(C) as null and void.

[4] The plaintiff filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 6 of 2018 in the said suit

seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making new

constructions or committing trespass of any kind or any act of invasion into the

CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021 Page 2 suit land pending disposal of the suit. By order dated 20.01.2018, the Trial

Court directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo as to the structure

& possession of the suit Schedule-A land. Thereafter, by order dated

09.02.2018, the Trial Court extended the said status quo order. Again, on

19.12.2018, the Trial Court took up the plaintiff's temporary injunction

application along with Judl. Misc. Case No. 23 of 2018 filed by the defendants

in the suit, seeking interim relief separately, and passed an order afresh

directing that the status quo orders dated 20.01.2018 and 09.02.2018 should

continue till the final disposal of the suit, so as to prevent further

complications. Both the miscellaneous cases were disposed of accordingly.

[5] Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed Misc. Civil

Appeal Case No. 1 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Imphal West.

The said appeal was disposed of by judgment and order dated 17.07.2019.

Thereby, the Appellate Court directed the Trial Court to issue a Commission to

ascertain the status of where the structures lie and the relative position

thereof. After considering these aspects, the Trial Court was given the liberty

to modify or alter the status quo order granted earlier. The Appellate Court

further directed both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo as regards

the suit Schedule A property and the schedule property given by the

defendants in the meanwhile. Pursuant to the direction of the Appellate Court,

the Trial Court appointed a Commission and after considering the

Commissioner's Report, submitted on 14.10.2019, the Trial Court passed the

order dated 26.02.2020, once again directing that the status quo order dated

19.12.2018 should remain in force till the disposal of the suit to prevent

multiplicity of proceedings.

CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021                                      Page 3
 [6]          Aggrieved by this status quo order, the defendants in the suit filed

Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2020 before the learned District Judge, Imphal

West. The said appeal was disposed of by the order dated 26.02.2021,

presently subjected to revision.

Perusal of the said order reflects that the Appellate Court took

note of the admitted position that the parties to the litigation were joint

owners of a larger extent that also included the suit land. The Appellate Court

also took note of the fact that though the parties to the litigation were joint

owners and they occupied separate portions, there was no partition by metes

and bounds on a legal basis. The Appellate Court took note of the legal

position as to the rights and liabilities of co-sharers of a property, as culled out

from the Division Bench Judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Sant Ram Nagina Ram V. Daya Ram Nagina Ram(AIR 1961 Punjab

528) and the HP High Court in Ashok Kapoor V. Murtu Devi (2016 (1)

Shim. LC 207). The Appellate Court also noted that the suit land was part

and parcel of the whole, which was in joint ownership and possession. Given

the fact that defendant No. 1 and his sons, defendants No. 5 & 6, had already

commenced construction of a building and keeping in mind the balance of

convenience, the Appellate Court modified the status quo order granted by the

Trial Court to the extent of permitting them to complete the structure and

possess that portion. The Appellate Court however restrained them from

constructing any other structure, over and above the existing structure,

without the leave of the Trial Court so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Further, the Appellate Court also restrained the parties from alienating any

portion of the whole land without the permission of the Trial Court.

CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021                                         Page 4
 [7]           Mr. N. Sashikanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not

dispute the fact that the parties to the litigation are members of a family. They

claim rights under late Moirangthem Kriti Singh, the father of the plaintiff and

defendants No. 1,2,3 & 4. He also does not dispute that the family members

would all have a share in the homestead land in its entirety and that the

plaintiff claims only 0.064 acres out of the total 0.32 acres of the homestead

land. He also does not dispute that construction by defendants No. 1,5 & 6

had already commenced and is only to be completed in all respects.

Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel for the said defendants,

would assert that the ground floor portion has been constructed and the first

floor is still in progress. This fact is not disputed by Mr. N. Sashikanta, learned

counsel. That being so, this Court sees no purpose served in preventing

defendants No. 1,5 & 6 from completing the construction, which is midway,

and in preventing them from enjoying the same. The Appellate Court has

already restrained the parties from alienating any portion of the whole land

and the parties would be bound thereby.

[8] This Court only deems it appropriate to further elaborate on the

order of the Appellate Court to the following effect: Defendants No. 1,5 & 6

may finish the existing ground floor of the structure and shall not extend it or

make any further construction on the ground floor. Only the plastering and

finishing of the ground floor is permitted. However, in so far as the first floor is

concerned, they may complete the construction and also the finishing thereof.

They shall however make no further constructions over the first floor. It is also

made clear that by virtue of the permission granted to them to complete this

construction, defendants No. 1, 5 & 6 shall not claim any equities at the time

CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021 Page 5 of the disposal of the suit, except to the extent permissible in law. Making the

aforestated position clear, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE MAYANG Digitally by signed FR/NFR LAMBAM MAYANGLAMBA M CHANU Indrajeet CHANU NANDINI Date: 2021.04.22 NANDINI 15:08:18 +05'30'

CRP (C.R.P. ART. 227) No. 24 of 2021 Page 6