H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 3/1990 dated 5.11.1998 thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.2.90 passed by the learned trial Court.

2. This appeal having been filed on 9.3.99 and is pending since then the present change in law in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002, the maintainability of the letter patent appeal would not be affected and accordingly the appeal is heard to be decided on merit.

3. Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned Counsel for the Defendant No. 1/Appellant and Mr. N. Kerani, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Respondent.

4. The suit out of which the Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted by the Respondent/Plaintiff in the Court of the then subordinate Judge No. 1 Manipur, Imphal, on 24.2.1984 praying for recovery of possession of the suit land measuring 0.62 acre evicting the Defendant No. 1 there from, decree for mean profit and for other reliefs. The said suit was registered as original suit No. 5/84, subsequently renumbered as T.S. No. 42/1986 and finally as T.S. No. 23/1987. The present Appellant was impleaded in the suit as principal Defendant No. 1. Summon of the suit having been served, the Appellant/Defendant entered appearance and contested the suit. The other two preformed Defendants did not contest the suit and the same proceeded ex-parte against them, no relief was also claimed against them in the suit.

5. The pleaded case of the Plaintiff inter alia is that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit land measuring 0.62 acre covered by New Dag No. 59, New Patta No. 16/617 of the Lilong Village under Thoubal Tehsil, Manipur, which is fully described in the Schedule of the plaint. The suit land originally belonged to one Md. Chaomacha Mia who expired leaving behind five sons including Md. Khomie Mia and three daughters. On his death the suit land devolved upon Khomie Mia along with certain other areas of land. Khomie Mia sold the suit land to the Plaintiff on 1.5.1967 for consideration of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by executing a registered sale deed and delivered possession thereof. In the sale deed the father of the Defendant No. 1 late Mahamad Mia and one Maheruddin Mia another son of Chaomacha Mia were the attesting witnesses. The Defendant No. 1 married the daughter of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff allowed his daughter to possess the suit land and enjoy the produce thereof for her maintenance and comfortable living and accordingly on such arrangement the Defendant No. 1 used to cultivate over the suit land and enjoyed the usufruct thereof. A bit more than one year before the filing of the suit, the Defendant contracting a second marriage drove the daughter of the Plaintiff out from the matrimonial home inflicting torture upon her. Meanwhile, the Defendant also surreptitiously got his name mutated over the suit land in the revenue record in place of the Plaintiff alleging that the suit land was earlier mortgaged to the Plaintiff and he has in the meantime redeemed the mortgage. Alleging the order of mutation dated 17.3.83 passed by the SDC to be in violation of the provisions contained in the Manipur Land Revenue and Manipur Land Reforms Act, 1960 and the Rules framed hereunder the Plaintiff preferred the Revenue Appeal No. 34/83 and upon dismissal of the same further appeal has been filed before the Deputy Commissioner which is registered as Revenue Second Appeal No. 2/84 wherein the order of mutation passed in favour of the Defendant was stayed. It is further alleged in the plaint that the Defendant never mortgaged the suit land to the Plaintiff and he got his name mutated surreptitiously and was forcibly occupying the suit land. The Defendant not having vacated the suit land inspite of demand so made, the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking reliefs as indicated hereinabove.

6. The summon of the suit having served