LAIREN v. Yengkokpam Yaima Singh

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR BEFORE

02.08.2022 This Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises out of the order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Imphal West, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2017. By the said order, the Appellate Court confirmed the temporary injunction granted by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West-II, vide common order dated 24.10.2016 passed in Judl. Misc. Case Nos. 71 of 2015 and 119 of 2015 (Ref: O.S. No. 16 of 2015). Aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in the suit are before this Court. Heard Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, and Mr. M. Nabakishwor, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2 Original Suit No. 16 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff for certain declarations and consequential reliefs. He sought a declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No. 622 of 1998 executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 should be treated as a mortgage deed; a declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No. 1064 of 2015 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was illegal and not binding on him; to declare the mutation orders dated 18.05.1998 and 25.03.2015 as illegal and not binding on him; to declare that he was entitled to redeem the mortgage of the suit land in November, 2015, or at any other time; to restrain the defendants from entering into the suit land, by way of a permanent injunction; and for costs. The suit land is the homestead land under Patta No. 105/258/408/I.W. covered by C.S. Dag No. 1038/1281 measuring .625 acre, situated at No. 105-Lamdeng Khunou. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement on the same lines and also raised a counter-claim. Thereby, he sought a perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from disturbing his peaceful possession of the suit land; and a decree directing the plaintiff not to trespass into the suit land as he was the owner; and for such other or further relief as he was found entitled to in law or equity; and for costs. Judl. Misc. Case No. 71 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men from entering into the suit land. Judl. Misc. Case 119 of 2015 was filed by defendant No. 2 under Order 39 Rule 1(c) CPC to restrain the plaintiff from entering into the suit land or disturbing his peaceful possession. 3 These two miscellaneous cases were disposed of by the Trial Court by order dated 24.10.2016. The plaintiff’s case before the Trial Court was that he was in need of money in the year 1996/1997 and had mortgaged the suit land to defendant No. 1 on 11.05.1998. He claimed that, by misrepresentation, a sale deed was obtained from him instead of a mortgage deed. According to him, defendant No. 1 wanted him to pay interest on the mortgage in the form of paddy and it was agreed that 3 pots of paddy would be given as yearly interest by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. He further stated that he paid such interest regularly, without default, till 2014. However, defendant No. 2 attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession in May, 2015 and he came to know that defendant No. 1 had executed registered sale deed No. 1064 of 2015 in favour of defendant No. 2 on 13.03.2015. The case of defendant No. 1 before the Trial Court was that the suit land was sold to him but was thereafter given on lease to the plaintiff for cultivation and he had to pay 3 bags of paddy as loushal (rent). The Trial Court noted that defendant No. 2 also admitted that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit land and giving 3 bags of paddy to defendant No. 1. As the factum of the plaintiff being in possession was admitted by the defendants and the payment of yearly interest or loushal of 3 pots/bags of paddy was also admitted, -the Trial Court held that the plaintiff would be entitled to protection of his possession pending the suit. The Trial Court accordingly granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants and their men were restrained from entering the suit land. The Trial Court further 4 directed that the plaintiff should continue to pay the interest/loushal of 3 pots/bags of paddy to the defendants till final disposal of the suit. In the appeal filed against the said order in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2017, the learned District Judge, Imphal West, took note of the admitted position that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and held that if his prayer for injunction was not granted, it would amount to dispossessing him without trial. The balance of convenience was therefore held to be in his favour. The Appellate Court accordingly came to the conclusion that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if his prayer for a temporary injunction was not accepted. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Court opined that no grounds were made out to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel, would fairly concede that there is no document evidencing the lease of the suit land to the plaintiff after execution of the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1. Therefore, as matters stand, there are rival contrary versions as to how the plaintiff is in possession and why he is paying 3 pots/bags of paddy to the defendants. On the one hand, the plaintiff claims that he is paying it as interest on the mortgage amount while, on the other hand, the case of the defendants is that he is paying it as rental for cultivating the suit land as a tenant. The nature of possession of the plaintiff would have to be decided by the Trial Court upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record after a full-fledged trial. No opinion can be ventured on that issue at this stage. It is, however, the admitted position that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, be it in whatever capacity. If the version of the 5 defendants is to be accepted, he is there as a tenant but, as on date, they have admittedly not initiated any steps for his eviction in accordance with law. Unless that event occurs, the plaintiff would be entitled to protect his possession. This Court, therefore, finds no grounds to interfere with the grant of a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. It is however to be noted that mere grant of such an injunction would not reflect upon the merits of either the plaintiff’s claim or of the case put forth by the defendants. It would be for the Trial Court to independently access the rival claims put forth by the parties on the strength of the evidence adduced by them and in accordance with settled propositions of law relating to registered documents and decide the issue. Making the position clear that grant of this temporary injunction would not influence the final outcome in the suit, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Indrajeet CHIEF JUSTICE