This application in revision under section 115 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Imphal on 21.4.92 in Misc Case No.32 of 1992 arising out of OS No.9 of 1992 whereby the learned Munsiff rejected the plaint of the petitioner.

2. Shri H. Dwijamani Dev Sharma, the petitioner herein filed two suits as plaintiff being OS No.9 of 1992 and OS No. 10 of 1992 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Imphal, Manipur for recovery of possession of the suit land described in the Schedule to the plaint after evicting the defendant who are his sons. The plaintiffs case is that he is the absolute owner of the suit land described to the Schedule to the plaint together with other lands. To facilitate construction of separate houses for his sons, the plaintiff sometime in the year, 1962 earmarked the portion of his patta land into plots to be given to his son on some future date and also to the Hindu deity, Sri Balmukundo Dev worshiped by him as 'Savait'. The plaintiff also caused entry of the names of the said deity and his sons in the relevants revenue records, but without any valid legal documents. The plaintiff made the arrangements for demarcation of the plots with the sole object of facilitating the construction of separate houses for his sons inside their respective portions earmarked for them and not beyond that. But after sometime of earmarking the portion to be distributed to his sons, the plaintiff became very much annoyed with the activities of his sons, the defendants in the two suits, who made a public declaration in the issue of a local daily, namely, 'Manipur Mail' dated 12.11.86 saying that plaintiffs rights, title and interest in the property were extinguished. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present two suits.

3. Both the sons resisted the suits by filing two applications under section 4 & of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. On the basis of this preliminary objection, the learned Munsiff registered 2 (two) miscellaneous cases, namely, Judicial Misc Case No.29 of 1992 arising out of OS No. 10 of 1992. The learned Munsiff disposed of both the misc cases by a common order dated 21.4.92. The learned Munsiff held that the suits were barred by section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and with this finding the learned Munsiff allowed both the miscellaneous cases and rejected the original suits of the plaintiff.

4. Having felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff rejecting both the civil suits, the plaintiff preferred two revision application before this Court which have been numbered as Civil Revision Nos. 10 and 11 of 1992.

5. The petitioner appeared before the Court personally and argued that the learned Munsiff has committed an error in holding that the present case is a case under Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The petitioner, further, submitted that the 'title deed' stands in the name of petitioner and therefore the petitioner is the. rightful owner of the suit land. The petitioner, further, submitted that the records of rights were altered keeping in view that the subsequent transfer deed may be executed without any difficulty. The petitioner, further, submitted that the records of rights is not an evidence of title and therefore the learned Munsiff should not have given any weights on such documents. The petitioner, therefore, submits that since the learned Munsiff has committed an error in rejecting the plaint, the same is required to be quashed.

6. On my request Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned Senior Advocate argued the case of the petitioner on legal points.

7. Mr. HNK Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, at the very outset, submitted that this revision petitions are not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. HNK Singh the phraseology, 'decree' as defined under section 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document