Shri Thangjam Kunjo Singh vs Smt. Maibam Ongbi Mukhi Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 367 Mani

LAIREN Digitally signed
        by
MAYUM INDRAJEET
        LAIRENMAYUM                                                                   Item No.20
INDRAJE SINGH                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                AT IMPHAL
        Date:
ET      2022.08.18
        15:03:56
SINGH +05'30'

                                      CRP(CRP ART.227) NO.20 OF 2020

               1.     Shri Thangjam Kunjo Singh, S/o (L) Tomcha Singh (now deceased)
                      represented by his Legal Representative, namely:-
               2.     Thangjam Milan Singh @ Miren Thangjba, aged about 45 years,
                      S/o (L) Th. Kunjo Singh of Chingmeirong Yengkhoiba Menjor Leikai,
                      P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
               3.     Shri Yumnam Gourachandra Singh, S/o Bijoy Singh (now deceased)
                      Represented by his Legal Representative, namely:-
               4.     Yumnam Boy Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o (L) Y.Gourachandra
                      Singh of Thangmeiband Laijingningthou, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
                      Imphal West District, Manipur- 795004.
               5.     Ngasepam Tombi Singh (now deceased) represented by Legal
                      Representative, namely:-
               6.     Ngasepam Manglem Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o (L)       Ng. Tombi
                      Singh of Chingmeirong Yengkhoiba Menjor Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S.
                      Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
               7.     Ngasepam Biren Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) Ng.Tombi
                      Singh of Chingmeirong Yengkhoiba Menjor Leikai,     P.O. Lamlong, P.S.
                      Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
                                                                                          ...Petitioners
                                                       -Versus-
                      Smt. Maibam Ongbi Mukhi Devi, now dead by her surviving Legal
                      representatives, Smt. Maibam Ningol Usham Ongbi Modhu Devi,
                      Resident of Thangmeiband Sinam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
                      West District, Manipur (died) represented by her legal representatives
                      Usham Ningol Ngangbam Ongbi Jandhabi Devi W/o Ng.Chandramani
                      Singh of Thangmeiband Lourung Purel Leikai, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
                      District, Manipur (now deceased) represented by her legal
                      representatives, namely, Smt. Ngangbam (N) Ingudam (O) Haripriya
                      Devi, aged about 40 years, D/o (L) Ng. Jandhabi Devi of Taothong
                      Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamsang, Imphal West District, Manipur-
                      795146.
                                                                                      ... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

For the Petitioners : Mr. N.Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate

For the Respondents : Ms. M.Swarnalata Devi, Advocate

Date of Judgment & Order : 17.08.2022

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Page 1 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

[1] This Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution,

arises out of the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Imphal East, in Execution Case No.15 of 1989/12 of 2019 (Ref: Original

Suit No.30 of 1972/127 of 1972). The petitioners herein are the judgment debtors

in the execution proceedings. By the said order, the Executing Court issued certain

directions. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtors are before this Court.

[2] By order dated 16.03.2020, this Court suspended the operation of the

order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Imphal

East, presently under revision. The suspension is operative as on date.

[3] Heard Mr. N.Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners; and

Ms. M.Swarnalata Devi, learned counsel for the respondents, viz., the decree

holders, being the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased plaintiff in the suit.

[4] Original Suit No.30 of 1972/127 of 1972 was instituted by the deceased

plaintiff for possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants therefrom and by

removing the structures put up by them. She also sought mesne profits/damages.

By judgment and decree dated 28.02.1974, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved thereby, the LRs of the deceased plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 13 of

1974 before the learned District Judge, Manipur. This appeal was allowed on

17.07.1975 and a preliminary decree was issued to deliver possession of the suit

land to the decree holders and permitting an enquiry to be made as to mesne

profits from the date of institution of the suit until the date of delivery of

possession. The Judgment and Decree dated 17.07.1975 were subjected to appeal

by the defendants in the suit in RSA No.14 of 1975 before the Imphal Bench of the

Gauhati High Court. This second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Page 2 05.09.1988. The application filed for restoration of the second appeal was also

dismissed on 05.04.1989. Execution Case No.15 of 1989/12 of 2019 was instituted

by the decree holders for execution of the decree dated 17.07.1975 for delivery of

possession, leading to the order under revision being passed by the Executing

Court. Pertinent to note, the judgment debtors, viz., the petitioners in this revision,

did not even choose to appear before the Executing Court at that time.

[5] It appears that one Awang Naharol Sebadol Club filed OS No. 60 of

1989 claiming the very same land which is subject matter of the decree dated

17.07.1975. Their prayer was that the said decree should not be held to be binding

on them. This suit was dismissed on 15.05.1995. First Appeal No.18 of 1995 filed

by the Club against the dismissal of their suit was also dismissed on 22.06.1998.

Second Appeal No.12 of 1988 filed by the Club before the Imphal Bench of the

Gauhati High Court was dismissed as not pressed on 03.11.2006.

[6] Separately, the Secretary of Chingmeirong Mamang Awang Leikai

Singlup Development Committee, Imphal East, filed Judl. Misc. Case No.209 of

2019 seeking to be impleaded as successors of the defendants/judgment debtors.

However, the Executing Court rejected their application on 15.03.2019.

[7] On 09.08.2019, the Executing Court passed an order directing that the

judgment debtors and those claiming through them should be evicted and the

standing structures in the suit land should be removed/dismantled so that

possession of the land could be delivered to the decree holders. The eviction was

directed to be carried out after the Sub-Deputy Collector, Heingang, conducted full

demarcation of the suit land after prior notice to the owners of adjoining lands.

[8] While so, a third party filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.523 of 2019

in the Execution Case claiming to be legal heir of one of the judgment debtors and

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Page 3 seeking to raise the question of executability of the decree dated 17.07.1975. This

application was also rejected on 24.09.2019.

[9] Pursuant to the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Executing Court,

the Court Bailiff and officials of the Revenue Department and the Police

Department went to the suit land and attempted to conduct demarcation on

23.09.2019. However, the same could not be completed on account of strong

objection by local members of the Singlup of Chingmeirong Mamang Leikai and the

authorities of Chingmeirong Upper Primary School, on the ground that there was

mismatch in the schedule of land given in the order dated 09.08.2019. The issue

raised by them was mainly in relation to names of the pattadars on the east of the

suit land and the Dag numbers of the adjacent lands. The the objectors raised the

issue that the names of the pattadars of the neighbouring lands as given in the

Original Suit were different from the names of the present pattadars.

[10] The Executing Court then passed an order on 16.10.2019 in order to

ascertain the boundary/schedule of the suit land. The Sub-Deputy Collector,

Heingang and the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer-IX, Directorate of

Settlement, Lamphelpat, were asked to submit a detailed report as to why the

demarcation proceedings could not be conducted as directed by the Court. Report

dated 20.01.2020 was submitted by the Director, Settlement and Land Record,

Manipur, and after perusing the same, the Executing Court passed order dated

27.01.2020 directing that certain information be furnished to the Court. Relevant

documents/Dag Chitha and Jamabandi were submitted by the decree holders

through their learned counsel and the same were placed on record before the

Executing Court. Upon perusing the said documents, the Executing Court noted

that the discrepancy in the names of the pattadars of the neighbouring lands was

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Page 4 due to subsequent transferees names having been entered. The Executing Court

also found that the schedule of the suit land, as given in the Original Suit, was

almost the same as the schedule of the land given in the Original Suit No.60 of

1989 filed by Awang Naharol Sebadol Club.

[11] The Executing Court traced the transfer of title leading to the difference

in the names of pattadars of the neighbouring lands and found that there was no

mismatch in the schedule of the suit land at that stage and the same was merely

an attempt by the local people to sabotage the execution proceedings. It is in these

circumstances that the Executing Court directed as follows: 1) the judgment

debtors, their men, agents and privies including the members of any local

organization and/or local Meira Paibi Organization be evicted from the suit land and

all standing structures be removed/dismantled/demolished. 2) After evicting the

judgment debtors, their men, agents and privies including members of any local

organization and/or local Meira Paibi Organization from the suit land, khas

possession of the suit land be delivered to the decree holders. 3) Liberty was given

to the decree holders to secure their possession of the suit land by proper fencing

after delivery. 4) Full demarcation of the suit land be done after eviction of illegal

occupants and delivery of possession to the decree holder. Prior notice of at least 3

days was to be given to the pattadars of the lands covered by C.S. Dag No.615

before the demarcation proceedings. The Bailiff attached to the Court of the District

Judge, Imphal East, was directed to execute the eviction process in accordance

with the aforestated directions without notice to the judgment debtors as notice

was already given to them on earlier occasions. Liberty was also given to the

decree holders to take the assistance of Media/Press for coverage of the eviction

process and the same was also directed to be placed before the Court. The Sub-

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Page 5 Deputy Collector, Heingang; the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer-IX,

Manipur; and the Officer-in-Charge of Lamphel Police Station were to render

assistance for successful eviction proceedings being carried out as directed.

[12] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, would contend that the

demarcation of the suit land should be done first before the actual eviction. He

would argue that the Executing Court erred in directing eviction to precede the

demarcation. However, it may be noted that it is not even the case of the judgment

debtors that they own land adjacent to the suit land, whereby they can claim a

boundary dispute, which would require demarcation being undertaken prior to their

eviction. Be it noted that as per the schedule in O.S. No.30 of 1972, the suit land

admeasuring 0.06 acre is situated at Laipham Khunou Village within Imphal East

Tehsil, covered by Patta No.11/201 IET comprising New C.S.Dag No.615 and is

bounded on the north by a School compound; on the south by a lane; on the east

by the Ingkhol (homestead) of Thangjam Chura Singh and Khumbongmayum (O)

Thagoi Devi; and on the west by a main road. Therefore, the suit land is abutted by

pathways on two sides and by a school compound and a private homestead

belonging to a third party on the other two sides. The judgment debtors are not

claiming rights over these neighbouring private lands.

[13] If the judgment debtors are in possession of the suit land itself, neither

they nor anyone claiming through them have any right to continue there in the

light of the judgment and decree dated 17.07.1975, which has admittedly attained

finality. It is not for the judgment debtors to espouse the cause of a third party, if

any, who asserts an independent right to claim possession of the suit land. As

already noted by the Executing Court, Awang Naharol Sebadol Club, the

unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No.60 of 1989, and the Chingmeirong Mamang Awang

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020 Page 6 Leikai Singlup Development Committee, Imphal East, the unsuccessful applicant in

Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.209 of 2019, have no right to object to the

execution proceedings as they have already suffered adverse orders which attained

finality. It is only if a third party, other than the judgment debtors and the

aforestated club/institution, raises an independent claim to possession that

recourse may have to be taken to the provisions of Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99 and

100 CPC. That situation has not arisen as on date.

[14] It is not open to the petitioners, being the judgment debtors, to raise

any claim at this stage objecting to the execution of the Judgment and Decree

dated 17.07.1975, having failed in their attempt to get the same set aside and

having failed to appear before the Executing Court. This Court therefore finds no

error having been committed by the Executing Court in directing eviction of the

judgment debtors and their men, and also the club/institution, which already

suffered adverse orders, from the suit land. However, as regards eviction of any

other occupant, being an independent third party, the eviction would have to be

subject to such an occupant not raising a separate claim independent of the

judgment debtors and the club/institution, which were already non-suited. Subject

to this exception, the order under revision is confirmed. Steps shall be taken by the

decree holders to approach the Executing Court for fixing a fresh time schedule for

execution with appropriate directions to all the authorities concerned.

The Civil Revision is disposed of accordingly.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Opendro

CRP(CRP Art.227) No.20 of 2020                                                Page 7