The main legal point established is that the evidence of property ownership, marriage legitimacy, and inheritance rights heavily influenced the court's decision in a property dispute case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act against the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 6/2015.

3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the learned trial court is that plaintiff/respondent and her late husband Ran Bahadur Gharty were married according to the Customary Law of Mizo rites and customs, by paying Bride Price and their marriage as solemnized according to the Mizo Christian Practices at Church on 01/06/1980. The acknowledgement of their marriage is issued by the Secretary, Village Council Court, Saitual, Aizawl District. The plaintiff/respondent is stated to be a self-employed woman and she bought a plot of land from her near relative with a hut standing therein at Saitual Chhim Veng, Aizawl District in the year 1985 wherein she constructed an RCC building with her hard earned money. A Land Settlement Certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the Department of Land Revenue & Settlement, Government of Mizoram which is covered under LSC No. CAD-658 of 2013. No children were born between the plaintiff/respondent and her husband. Thereafter the defendant/appellant who is the son of the plaintiff/respondent’s husband from his first marriage was raised by the plaintiff/respondent and her late husband when the defendant was a boy till his marriage due to which he moved out from their house to start a new family of his own. The plaintiff/respondent and her late husband continue to live in the same house after the defendant/appellant left. The plaintiff/respondent’s husband died on 18.4.2011. After the death of the plaintiff/respondent husband, the defendant/appellant along with his wife and children moved back to the plaintiff/respondent house claiming that he is the rightful owner of the plaintiff’s/respondent house. The plaintiff/respondent had made many attempts to evict the defendant/appellant and his family from her house but in vain as the defendant/appellant repeatedly claimed that the house belongs to his deceased father and that he is the sole heir to the property and thus threatening the plaintiff to move out or otherwise. The plaintiff/respondent case is that she was the person who purchased the land covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 and the LSC is also issued in her favour. As such, the plaintiff/respondent is the legal and rightful owner of the said land. The said LSC was never issued in the name of the plaintiff’s late husband and the defendant had no right to claim the said land.

4. The defendant/appellant case was that there was no marriage between the plaintiff/respondent and the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty. The deceased was holding the post of S.I during his life time and the disputed plot of land was bought by him for Rs.6,000/-, the deceased had also bought another plot of land for Rs.37000/-. While the defendant/respondent was taking steps to mutate the disputed plot of land in the name of his father Ran Bahadur Gharty, his father died on 08.04.2011 and the respondent/plaintiff had secretly got the LSC mutated in her name. The defendant/appellant moved back to his father’s house in 2010 and looked after his father till his death, paying for his hospital bills. That since the defendant/appellant was the only son of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty, the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 be inherited by him being the sole legal heir.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Lower court then framed the following issues”

i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style

ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD No. 658 of 2013

iv) Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the land