Kakhulin Dangmei v. Dongkhopao Haokip & Ors.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR BEFORE For the applicant in MC (RSA) Nos. 6 & 7 of 2020 : Mr. Kh. Chonjon, Sr. Advocate and respondent in MC (RSA) No. 19 and 20 of 2022 For the applicant in MC (RSA) No. 19 & 20 of 2022 : Mr. Th. Henba, Advocate and respondent No. 1 in MC (RSA) No. 6 & 7 of 2020 Date of Order : 05.09.2022 MC (RSA) No. 7 of 2020; & Ors. ORDER (ORAL) Sanjay Kumar (C.J.): [1] RSA No. 1 of 2020 was filed against the concurring common judgment dated 17.08.2019 of the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, in relation to Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2018, confirming the common judgment and decree dated

12.05.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur, in Original Suit No. 7/2008/21/2012/33/2013. RSA No. 2 of 2020 was filed against the very same concurring judgment dated 17.08.2019 of the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, in so far as it pertained to Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018 and thereby, the learned District Judge confirmed the common judgment and decree dated

12.05.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur, in O.S. No. 11/2011/16/2012/7/2013. [2] The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in both these second appeals. In the first suit, he sought a declaration that he was the owner of the suit schedule property and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the same. In the second suit, he prayed for a declaration that the alleged registered Gift Deed bearing Document No. 1 of 2007 dated 02.11.2007 executed by defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 was null and void and not binding upon him. He sought a further declaration that the defendant No. 1 had no right and title over the suit land. By the common judgment and decrees passed in the suits on

12.05.2017, the Trial Court categorically recorded that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land. This finding of fact was confirmed by the Appellate Court. Be it noted that the appellant in these appeals filed Judicial Misc. Case No. 26 of 2008 in OS No. 7 of 2008 seeking a temporary MC (RSA) No. 7 of 2020; & Ors. injunction against respondent No. 1. However, the injunction which was granted therein was vacated by the Trial Court on 13.07.2009 after hearing both parties. Further, respondent No. 1 in the appeals filed OS. No. 1 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Churachandpur, in respect of the same suit land along with an application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 4 of 2008 for a temporary injunction. The injunction granted therein on 04.04.2008 was made absolute on

29.12.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2009/1 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Manipur West. However, the said appeal was dismissed on 27.11.2009 and the order was allowed to attain finality. In the Trial Court’s common judgment dated 12.05.2017, the issues framed in the first suit were set out in para 12. One of the issues was whether the plaintiff had established a new village under his Chiefship within the suit land and whether the plaintiff and the villagers were residing in the house site claimed by him at Gaibiangtiang. The finding thereon is given at para 33 of the judgment wherein the Trial Court noted that the plaintiff had miserably failed in establishing that he had set up a new village called Daruan Namdiah-B and that he was residing with the other villagers in the suit land. The plaintiff’s own witnesses (PWs 2 & 3) did not corroborate his version. [3] This being the situation obtaining as on date, it may be noted that these second appeals were admitted on 16.03.2020 by framing substantial questions of law in each of them. However, interim orders were passed separately in the main appeals on 31.08.2020 as follows: “There shall be order of interim, restraining the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 from disturbing the plaintiff/appellant’s peaceful possession of the suit land till 16.09.2020.” MC (RSA) No. 7 of 2020; & Ors. The interim orders were extended thereafter in RSA No. 1 of 2020. While so, MC (RSA) No. 19 of 2022 and MC (RSA) No. 20 of 2022 were filed by respondent No. 1 to vacate the aforestated interim orders dated 31.08.2020. [4] Heard Mr. Kh. Chonjon, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant in both the second appeals and the applicants in MC (RSA) No. 6 of 2020 and RSA No. 7 of 2020; and Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in both the second appeals and the applicants in MC (RSA) No. 19 of 2022 and MC (RSA) No. 20 of 2022. [5] The details set out hereinabove clearly demonstrate that there are concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the appellant, being the plaintiff in the suits, failed to establish his possession over the suit land before both the Courts below. Without the appeals being heard on the substantial questions of law framed on 16.03.2020, it would not be permissible for this Court to reverse such findings of fact at the interlocutory stage and grant interim relief to the appellant. Whether this Court can even reverse such a finding of fact is itself a question which will have to be considered at the time of hearing of these appeals. [6] This Court therefore finds no grounds made out to continue the interim order granted on 31.08.2020 contrary to the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. [7] MC (RSA) No. 19 of 2022 and MC (RSA) No. 20 of 2022 are accordingly allowed, vacating the aforestated interim orders dated 31.08.2020 passed in both the second appeals, and MC (RSA) No. 6 of 2020 and MC (RSA) No. 7 of 2020 filed for such interim relief shall stand dismissed. Sandeep MC (RSA) No. 7 of 2020; & Ors. CHIEF JUSTICE