Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT AIZAWL BENCH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
LALMUANPUIA CHAWNGTHU - Appellant
Versus
REMCHHUNGA CHAWNGTHU - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 9 of 2016; Cross Objection No. 3 of 2016
Decided on : 12-10-2018
MUTATION - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 58 & 59 - The court discussed the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Articles 58 and 59, in a property dispute case. It highlighted the starting point for limitation to start running and the relevance of the Mizo Customary Law in inheritance disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the dismissal of their Declaratory Suit, claiming that the mutation of the suit land in favor of the respondent was illegal and null and void. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation and lack of merit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation as the starting point for limitation to start running was from the date of knowledge of the mutation of the suit land in the name of the respondent. The court also held that the defect in not issuing notice under Section 80 CPC did not make the Declaratory Suit 'not maintainable' as the said defect had been deemed to be waived by the Government.
Issues: The issues included whether the Declaratory Suit was barred by the law of limitation, whether the suit was maintainable without notice under Section 80 CPC, and the inheritance of the suit property as per the Mizo Customary Law or by way of a Will.
Ratio Decidendi: The starting point for limitation to start running was from the date of knowledge of the mutation of the suit land in the name of the respondent. The defect in not issuing notice under Section 80 CPC did not make the Declaratory Suit 'not maintainable' as the said defect had been deemed to be waived by the Government. The court also emphasized the relevance of the Mizo Customary Law in inheritance disputes.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned Judgment & Order and declared the mutation of the suit property in the name of the respondent as null and void, allowing the parties to claim the suit properties as per the Mizo Customary Law before the competent Court.
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vanlalhriati, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and cross objector. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
2. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs, have challenged the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2016, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, by which Declaratory Suit No. 3/2012 was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and lacked merit.
3. The appellants case is that the original owner of the suit land covered by LSC No. 504/1985 & 505/1985 was Mr. C. Patea (L). Mr. C. Patea had 9 (nine) children. The appellant No. 1 is the son of Chawngchhuanliana, who in turn was the youngest son of C. Patea. The appellant No. 2 is the youngest daughter of C. Patea. The respondent No. 1 is the third youngest son of C. Patea. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the State respondents.
4. The appellants counsel submits that during the lifetime of C. Patea, the family of Chawngchhuanliana (youngest son of C. Patea) and Biakvela (second youngest son of Mr. C. Patea (L)), all lived in the suit property covered by LSC No. 504/1985 & 505/1985, along with C. Patea. At that time, the respondent No. 1 was living separately with his family in a separate house as he was indang. Indang means to live in a separate house. C. Patea died on 16.09.1989.
5. That on 29.06.2010, the father of the appellant No. 1, i.e., Chawngchhuanliana and the second youngest son of C. Patea (L), Biakvela received a notice asking them to vacate/leave the house covered by the suit property. The Notice dated 29.06.2010 was issued by the respondent No. 1. On enquiry, the appellants came to learn that after the death of C. Patea on 16.09.1989, the land and buildings covered by LSC No. 504/1985 & 505/1985 had been mutated by the Government into the name of the respondent No. 1 on 30.11.1989. Chawgchhuanliana (youngest son of C. Patea(L)) expired on 15.03.2012. The appellant No. 1 was thereafter verbally told to vacate the suit land. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the Declaratory Suit No. 3/2012 on 26.06.2012, praying for a declaration that the mutation of the LSC No. 504/1985 & 505/1985 in the name of the respondent No. 1 by the Government, should be declared as illegal, null and void.
6. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, after taking the evidence of the parties dismissed Declaratory Suit No. 3/2012, vide Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2016, by holding that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and that it lacked merit.
7. The appellants counsel submits that the cause of action for filing the suit arose only when the notice for eviction from the house was issued to them on 29.06.2010 and when they came to know of the illegal mutation of the suit land of Mr. C. Patea (L) in the name of the respondent No. 1 on 15.03.2012. Accordingly, the appellants having filed the Declaratory Suit No. 3/2012, in the month of June, 2012, the suit was not hit by the law of limitation. He further submits that the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, while in fact, the suit should have been considered in consonance with Article 59 of the Schedule. He also submits that the appellant No. 1 being the youngest son of the C. Patea, i.e., Chawngchhuanliana, who died on 15.03.2012, the inheritance to the property in question would have go to the youngest son as per the Mizo Customary Law. He thus submits that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on grounds of limitation and lack of merit. He, accordingly prays for setting aside the impugned Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2016, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei in Declaratory Suit No. 3/2012 and for remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court to decide the issues afresh.
8. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
