Manipur High Court
Mr. Sonar Chand Singh Ngangom vs Shri Ngangom Mir on 26 October, 2021
JOHN Digitally signed
by JOHN TELEN
TELEN KOM
Date: 2021.10.29
KOM 16:14:11 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRP No. 3 of 2018
Mr. Sonar Chand Singh Ngangom, aged about 77 years, S/o late Ngangom
Jugindro Singh, a resident of Nagampal Kangjabi Leirak, PO & PS
Lamphel, PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur and presently staying
abroad at 4 Riverglade Parkway, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610, New
Zealand.
Through his attorney holder namely Ms. Motimala Ngangom
Singh, a resident of Nagamapal Kangjabi Leirak, P.O. Lamphel, P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District Manipur.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Shri Ngangom Mir, aged about 40 years, s/o late Ngangom Mohendro, a
resident of Nagamapal Kangjabi Leirak Machin, P.O. & PS. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur.
...Respondents
2. Mr. Khongbantabam Tomba Singh, aged about 54 years, s/o
Khongbantabam Mangol Singh, a resident of Yaiskul Sougaijam Leirak,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur and presently residing
at Nagamapal Kangjabi Leirak, PO Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur ( Now deceased).
3. Mrs. Samandram Nonibala Devi, aged about 48 years, W/o
Khongbantabam Tomba Singh, a resident of Yaiskul Sougaijam Leirak,
PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur and presently residing
at Nagamapal Kangjabi Leirak, PO Lamphel, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur.
....Proforma Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr M. Rakesh Advocate,
For the Respondents : None appeared.
Date of hearing : 17.09.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 26.10.2021
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order
dated 19.4.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal
West in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.157 of 2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2015. The
first respondent herein is the applicant in J.M.C.No.157 of 2018.
[2] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the first
respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition, despite several opportunities being
afforded to him, he has not been represented either in person or through his
counsel.
[3] In the affidavit-in-opposition, the first respondent stated that the
homestead land under Patta No.89/7/417, Imphal West Tahsil now Patta
No.89/417(Old)678(New) was recorded in the name of (i) Ngangom Jugindra
Singh of Lalambung and (ii) Lamabam Kala Singh of Lamabam Leikai in the
year 1959 in C.S.Dag No.152 of Village No.89-Lalambung measuring .62 acre
as co-pattadars and they possess the same as owner pattadar thereof ever since
without any interruption from any quarter whatsoever. After the death of the said
two co-pattadars the names of their legal heirs were entered in the record of
rights of the said land as co-pattadars and the northern half of the said
homestead land has been in possession of (i) Ngangom Mohendra Singh; (ii)
Ngangom Birijit Singh; (iii) Ngangom Jitendra Singh and (iv) Motimala Ngangom
jointly. The southern half has been in possession of the legal heirs of the
deceased Lamabam Kala Singh. It is stated that the said homestead land is not
yet been partitioned amongst the legal heirs of deceased Lamabam Kala Singh
and Ngangom Jugindra Singh and as such the preparation of separate
Jamabandi in the names of the co-pattadars is illegal and deserves to be
cancelled. The first respondent along with his family members possess the north-
eastern portion of the said homestead land measuring an area of 0.0251 hectare
of land as owner and have constructed dwelling houses therein since the life time
of his father without any interruption from any quarter and the petitioner is a
necessary party to the suit. It is stated that the prayer for impleading a person
cannot be resisted on the ground that no relief has been sought against him and
on the other hand, the suit land mentioned in the suit is the area where the first
respondent along with his family members are residing and as such very much
connected with him.
[4] Assailing the impugned order dated 19.4.2018, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the learned Civil Judge failed to consider
and examine the cardinal principles of law in passing the impugned order by
applying the judicial mind to the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by
them in the suit. He would submit that the learned Civil Judge has failed to
appreciate the fact that the suit land has no connection with the first respondent
and that the petitioner herein has a right and prerogative to choose and implead
in his suit as defendant the person against whom he seeks relief.
[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since there
is no dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of the suit
land owned and recorded in the name of the petitioner, the first respondent is
not a necessary party to the suit and the learned Civil Judge, without considering
the said aspect of the matter, allowed the application filed by the first respondent,
thereby impleaded him as third defendant in the suit. Since such order of the
learned Civil Judge is not in consonance with the applicable provisions of law,
the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of learned
Civil Judge impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.
[6] While allowing the application of the first respondent for
impleadment in the suit, the learned Civil Judge observed as under:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that
there is sufficient ground for impleading the applicant as a necessary party to the
suit as his presence will enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate
upon and settled the question involved in the suit. It is also ascertained that the
present suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be decreed in the absence of the
applicant being a necessary party. Hence, the application filed by the applicant
is hereby allowed. Accordingly, his name is added in the suit as defendant No.3
after the name of the recorded defendant Nos.1 and 2 and amend the plaint in
such manner as necessary as per C.P.C. J.M. stands disposed off."
[7] Admittedly, the petitioner herein has filed the Original Suit No.55
of 2015 against one Khongbantabam Tomba Singh and his wife Samandram
Nonibala Devi to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and eviction
of the defendants from the suit premises and deliver vacant possession of the
same to the plaintiff. The petitioner also claimed damages at the rate of
Rs.500/per month since March, 2014 for their unauthorized occupation of the
suit premises till the recovery of the same and also prayed to cancel the gift deed
dated 28.9.2005 and plaint schedule, the Property has been described as under:
SCHEDULE
The homestead land under Patta No 417 (old), 678/2276 (new), covered by Dag
No.2321/2680, measuring an area Of 0.0250 hectare, situated at village No.89
- Khwail Lalambung, Imphal West Tahasil is bounded:
On the north : By the road of the Kangjabi Leira
On the south : By the Land of Lamabam Netrajit Singh
On the east : By the road of Nagamapal Road
On the west : By the land of Ngangom Mihir Singh
[8] In his affidavit-in-opposition, the first respondent stated that he is
one of the recorded co-pattadar and possessor of the homestead land
nder C.S.Dag No.2321 measuring 0.62 acre (0.2509 hectare) and he claims that
he along with his family members possesses the northeastern portion of the said
homestead land measuring an area of 0.0251 hectare of the land. The petitioner
as plaintiff in the suit claimed right over C.S.Dag No.2321/2780 measuring an
area of 0.0250 hectare with specific boundaries. On the other hand, the first
respondent has given the specific boundary for their land as under:
On the North : By the Road of Kangjabi Leirak
On the South : By the homestead land of the heirs of late Lamabam
Kala Singh
On the East : By the Nagamapal Road
On the West : By the remaining portion of the homestead land of
Late Ngangom Jugindra
[9] Thus, it is clear that the two parties have claimed their rights with
separate boundaries. Since the relief claimed against the defendants in the suit
is for the property measuring 0.0250 hectare with specific boundaries, the first
respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the learned Civil Judge erred
in passing the impugned order thereby impleading the first respondent as the
third defendant, who is not at all related to the suit property. Since no relief is
sought against the first respondent and there is no dispute between the petitioner
and the first respondent in respect of the suit land owned and recorded in the
name of the petitioner, the learned Civil Judge ought not to have impleaded the
first respondent as the third defendant in the suit.
[10] As rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner as plaintiff has a right and prerogative to choose and implead
in his suit as defendant the person against whom he seeks relief and the
petitioner is not obliged to implead a person as defendant in the suit, against
whom no relief is sought. Admittedly, as stated supra, the petitioner as plaintiff
in the suit has not claimed any relief against the first respondent or their family
members. The petitioner claimed relief only against the defendants, who are
stated to be unauthorized occupants and only the defendants in the suit have
right to defend the suit and not the first respondent herein.
[11] In the grounds, the petitioner has categorically stated that the
petitioner has no grievance against the homestead land owned and possessed
by the first respondent and in other words, there is no issue for adjudication
between the petitioner and the first respondent. When that being the plea of the
petitioner herein, the first respondent is not a necessary or proper party to the
suit for adjudication of the claim made in the suit.
[12] The learned Civil Judge, while allowing the application of the first
respondent, simply stated that the first respondent who has interest to join in the
suit as defendant has interest in the subject matter of the
suit. The said finding of the learned Civil Judge is not founded with
material documents and In the given facts and circumstances of the case and
the averments made in the plaint, the first respondent is not an
interested person and the ground for which he has to be Impleaded as
defendant in the suit has no merit.
[13] .Admittedly, Order I, Rule 3 CPC deals with joinder of defendants
in a suit. In order to join as a defendant in the suit, he should have a legal interest
in the reliefs claimed in the suit. Similarly, Order 1, Rule 10 CPC gives power to
the Court that at any stage of the suit a person may be added as a party to a
suit. As stated supra, the first respondent has no legal interest in the reliefs
claimed by the petitioner in the suit and the petitioner has not claimed any relief
against the first respondent. That apart, the interest not shown in proceeding with
the present Civil Revision Petition, despite several opportunities being afforded
to the first respondent, would also indicate that the first respondent has no legal
right over the land in question in the suit.
[14] The findings arrived at by the learned Civil Judge in impleading the
first respondent as defendant No.3 in the suit is not based on the
material evidence. Therefore, the order dated 19.4.2018 of the learned
Civil Judge impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set aside.
[15] Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order
of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West dated 19.4.2018 made
in J.M.C.No. 157 of 2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2015 is set aside.
[16] No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
