Back
1952 Supreme(Gau) 76
Manipur High Court
LAKSHMI NARAIN, J.
Lamabam Ibomacha Singh
Versus
Laisram Ongbi Sanachoubi Devi w/o Porom Singh
Civil Revn. Case No. 15 of 1951
Decided On : 16-06-1952
R.K. Singh, for Petitioners; Somorendra Singh, for Respondent.
The Limitation Act, 1908 was not in force in Manipur at the time of accrual of cause of action and, therefore, the suit was governed by the Limitation Act, 1908.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT - APPLICABILITY - MANIPUR - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF LAND - LIMITATION ACT NOT IN FORCE IN MANIPUR AT THE TIME OF ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION - SUIT GOVERNED BY INDIAN LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - ART. 123 APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land against the defendant, who claimed to be the heiress of the last full owner. The trial court decreed the suit, but the District Judge reversed the decree on appeal. The plaintiffs filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was not in force in Manipur at the time of accrual of cause of action and, therefore, the suit was governed by the Limitation Act, 1908. The court further held that the defendant was not the heiress of the last full owner and that her possession of the land was permissive and did not ripen into an adverse possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the defendant was the heiress of the last full owner. 3. Whether the defendant's possession of the land was adverse.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Limitation Act, 1908 was not in force in Manipur at the time of accrual of cause of action and, therefore, the suit was governed by the Limitation Act, 1908. 2. The defendant was not the heiress of the last full owner because she was not the daughter of her step-brother's father. 3. The defendant's possession of the land was permissive and did not ripen into an adverse possession.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed and the decree passed by the District Judge in appeal was reversed.
2. The facts of the case are as follows : One Leiren Singh died issueless and without leaving any widow about 10 years ago. The plaintiffs are his fathers brothers sons. The defendant respondent is the daughter of Lakshmi Devi (Mother of Leiren Singh) by her another husband whom she married after the death of Leiren Singhs father. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that with their permission the defendant was allowed to stay in the inkhol in dispute after the death of Leiren Singh which is under patta No. 90/576. I. W. T. It is said that after a few years i.e. in 1950 she posed as an owner of the inkhol and tried to have it mutated in her favour by means of mutation case No. 58 of 1950-51 of the Sub Deputy Collector, I.W.T. An objection having been raised in these proceedings by the plaintiffs, they were directed to have the title adjudicated by a Civil Court. The present suit is the outcome of that direction. The cause of action is alleged by the plaintiffs to have accrued on 30-7-50 when defendant tried to have the suit land mutated in her favour in the Revenue Office. The defendant has denied the plaintiffs claim on the ground that she was living with Leiren Singh her step-brother from her birth and that she redeemed the inkhol which was mortgaged by Leiren Singh. This was done in the life of Leiren Singh by her as the latter was penniless; and also that she has been paying land revenue and enjoying the property as an heir to her stepbrother Leiren Singh since his death. It is not disputed that the property is not ancestral. It is also admitted that the defendant is not full sister of Leiren Singh but his half sister from other side.
3. The following issues were framed by the learned Munsiff in this case :
"1. Has the pltff. any cause of action?
2. Is the suit barred by limitation?
3. Are the pltffs. and the defdt. heirs to deceased Leiren Singh, the late owner of the said land? If so their order of succession?
4. Was the land ever mortgaged by Leiren Singh to Lamabam Iboton Singh? Was it redeemed by the defdt? If so, the legal effect on the title?
5. Was the land ever given by Leiren Singh to the defdt.?
6. On what right the defdt. has been residing in the Inkhol? How long?
7. Who performed the Sradha of the pattadar Leiren Singh? Its effect on the law of inheritance?
8. To what relief, if any, the pltffs. are entitled?"
4. The learned District Judge on appeal made the case simpler and found the following 4 points for determination in this case :
"1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the defdt.-applt. is the heiress of the last full owner, if so whether she is excluded by the plffs-respdts.
3. Who performed the funeral rites of the last pattadar Leiren Singh; whether the performer of the funeral rites is entitled to get the suit land.
4. Whether the defdt.-applt. is possessing the land with the permission of the pltffs-respdt."
5. As for Limitation. The allegation of the plaintiffs that Leiren Singh died about 10 years ago before the suit was brought, is not denied by the defendant. This suit was brought on 4-8-50 after the following order passed by the Revenue Officer in mutation proceedings, mentioned earlier in this judgment, "The defendants (i.e. the present plaintiffs) may however take shelter of the Civil Court if they feel aggrieved", and so also after coming in force of the Indian Limitation Act which was extended to this State by means of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949. The learned District Judge has waived the operation of the Indian Limitation Act on the ground that the cause of action for this suit having been arisen much earlier when the Limitation Act
