S.K. Kar, J.

1. It is really sad but is a fact that after consuming an unusual period of more than 10 yrs., this second appeal, registered on 7-1-1993, came up for hearing. On 17-7-95, this Court made an observation that the appeal was being dragged for nothing with further observation that none of the counsel engaged for the parties were either appearing or taking any appropriate steps towards the progress of the appeal. The matter continued to get adjourned on this or that grounds on request from the parties. It appears that the matter was left totally uncared for since 17-12-98 till 27-5-2003. Further prayer for adjournment was, however, refused and matter was heard on 19-2-2004.

2. This appeal initially registered on 29-8-85 as C.A. No. 6/85 before this High Court was send down on ground of pecuniary jurisdiction to lower Court vide order dated 10-11-89. However, on admission, stay of execution of impugned decree was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12-1-1993 (Misc. Appln. No. 8/93).

3. Late Sapam Kunjo Singh, who was the defendant No. 7 before the Court of first instance and principal respondent No. 7 before the first appellate Court, preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-8-92 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Manipur East, in Civil Appeal No.1/90/2/90/13/90/1/92 of this Court. The first appellate Court decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31-5-85 passed by the Court of subordinate Judge No. 11, Manipur, in original Suit No. 29/75 dismissing the suit.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the presentation of the suit in question are as follows as per the plaint :-

One late Takhellambam Damodor Singh s/o late Kriti Singh of Keisamthong Laisom Leirak, Imphal, died intestate in the year 1952 leaving behind one widow (pltf. No. 1) and 4 sons (pits. Nos. 2, 3, 4 and defdt. No. 1) and 5 daughters (defd. Nos. 2 to 6) and the parties were governed by the Dayabhaga School of the Hindu Law and the Customs prevalent amongst the Manipuri Hindus. The said Damodor Singh owned and possessed immovable properties described in Schedules A.A/1 and B appended to the plaint and continued to do so till his death and they are comprised of homestead (ingkhol) and arable land (lou), and hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, to be referred as the 'suit property'. Damodor Singh had his house constructed upon the land of Schedule-A and lived therein till his death. On his death, plaintiffs and defendants No. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residing thereupon, plaintiff No. 1 claiming the share as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Hindu Woman's Right to Property Act, 1937 as limited owner and her such right is converted to exclusive ownership on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 17-6-1956. That, the unmarried daughters of Damodor Singh, defdts. No. 2, 4 to 6, on the death of Damodor Singh will be entitled to a share in the suit property for their maintenance and marriage (defdt. 3 got married in the meantime) and after taking out their shares, the remaining suit property is to be divided amongst the plaintiffs and the defdt. No. 1 in equal shares of 1/5 each and that the co-sharers excluding defdt. No. 1 are in joint possession of the suit property though it was managed by the defdt. Nos. 2 and 3. After the death of Damodor Singh, although no partition was effected, the suit property was recorded in the revenue department in the names of different heirs of Damodor and the plaintiffs and the defdts. No. 2 to 6 were residing in the original homestead part of the suit property, i.e., Schedule-A land, whereas the defdt. No. 1 started living in a separate house constructed in the southern portion of the homestead land. That only on 30-12-67, the plaintiffs could learn that defdt. No. 1 without the consent of the other co-sharers transferred illegally part of the homestead land under old patta No. 17/94 I.E.T. (corresponding to new patta No. 17/133 I.E.T.) covered