JUDGMENT :- This appeal has been brought by Musammat Manihar Bibi appellant against the decree of the learned District Judge, Manipur, dated 10-8-1953 in Civil Suit No. 8 of 1952 which has been dismissed by the trial Court. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Mahammad Kasim Mia respondent No. 3 was married to Musammat Manihar Bibi appellant on 5-7-1932 and the latters dower debt was settled at Rs. 10,000/- for which an agreement deed had been executed. This agreement deed was alleged to have been lost during the bombing of Imphal in the last war, and so the appellants mother when in her death bed got another deed dated 10th January 1951, Ex. P/B from the husband whereby the latter gave the disputed property situated in plot No. 164, Maxwell Bazar, along with constructed buildings thereon as consideration for the dower debt and the appellant was given possession over the disputed plot on the same date. The appellant, however, in order to feel secure got a regular sale deed from her husband on 5-7-1952 vide Ex. P/A and this deed was registered on 8-7-1952. The appellant claims to have Jet out the buildings in question vide Ex. P/B and so she claimed to be in possession also.

2. Mahammad Kasini Mia respondent No. 3 had borrowed Rs. 12,000/- from Ganesh Singh and Giga Singh through the pro-note dated 10-7-1949 and this debt remained unpaid. On 5-3-1952 Rakha Singh, son of Ganesh Singh and Mahabir Singh, son of Giga Singh brought suit No. 16 of 1952 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Manipur on the basis of the aforesaid pro-note and an application for attachment before judgment of the disputed property, was filed on 23rd June 1952. On the same date the learned Sub-Judge demanded cash security from the respondent No. 3 Mahammad Kasim Mia and later on 23rd August 1952 when security was not furnished, an order for attachment before judgment was passed relating to this property and the Suit No. 16 of 1952 was decreed for Rs. 19,759/- on 25th August 1952. It has already been mentioned by me that the sale deed with regard to the property in question was executed by Mohammad Kasim Mia in favour of the present appellant on 5-7-1952 after the application for attachment before judgment had been presented in Court on 23-6-1952. Musammat Manihar Bibi appellant filed an objection under O. 38, Rules 8 and 10 read with O. 21, R. 58, Civil P.C., on 22-9-1952. This objection was opposed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by means of reply dated 21-11-1952 and the appellants objection was dismissed on the same date. The present appellant then brought Suit No. 8 of 1952 under O. 21, R. 63, Civil Procedure Code on 19-12-1052 praying for declaration that Musammat Manihar Bibi was the owner in possession of the property in question and it was further prayed that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be permanently restrained from executing their decree passed in Suit No. 16 of 1952 (Execution Case No. 51 of 1852) and the execution proceedings be stayed until the disposal of the suit. This suit was also dismissed, and so Musammat Manihar Bibi has come in appeal.

3. The respondents - No. 1 and 2 denied that the respondent No. 3 owed any dower debt of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant and they further denied that the respondent No. 3 had executed any agreement deed at the time of the marriage or on 10-1-1950 and the story about the loss of the agreement deed and the appellants mother imploring her son-in-law to execute the deed dated 10-1-1950, has also been denied. If was further contended that the dower debt of the appellant if any at all had become time-barred and in any case it was not subsisting on 10-3-1950 or on 5-7-1952. According to these two respondents the appellant had throughout been living with the respondent No. 3 in his house and she had never been in possession over the disputed property. It was also contended that the plaint was not duly verified and the court-fee paid was insufficient, but these pleas have not been pressed before me.

4. The first qu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document