Back
2014 Supreme(Manipur) 86
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
L.K.Mohapatra, J.
Lairenmayum Rashmandal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Khwairakpam Jayentakumar Singh (dead) by LRs and others - Resopndent
F.A.O. No. 2 of 2007
Decided On : 19-05-2014
For the Appellant :A. Gourakrishna Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Mahendra Singh, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to address specific issues raised in a review petition constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the setting aside of the impugned judgment.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, 1963 - Issue No. 4-A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of inherited land and eviction of the respondents. The Trial Court decreed possession of the land to the appellant. The respondents filed a review petition challenging the decree and the Trial Court allowed further evidence and modified the decree, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court failed to decide issue No. 4-A and did not render a finding on the additional issue, leading to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was the Trial Court's failure to decide issue No. 4-A and render a finding on the additional issue, leading to an error apparent on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Trial Court's failure to address specific issues raised in the review petition constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the setting aside of the impugned judgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East in Civil Review Case No. 4 of 2005.
2. The appellant had filed Original Suit No. 28/94/20/2002 in the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East for declaration that plaint schedule A land is his inherited and ancestral homestead land and also for eviction of the present respondents who were defendants in the suit from plaint Schedule B land which comes within Schedule A land. The further prayer in the plaint was to declare khas possession of the appellant over the suit land.
3. The case of the appellant before the Trial Court was that one Manik such was the original owner of the suit land and was also the pattadar. He died in 1948 leaving behind four sons namely Cheiteina Singh, Jatra Singh, Samungou Singh and Iboton Singh. Cheiteina Singh died in 1943 leaving behind a daughter namely Tharongoubi Devi. Jatra died in 1941 and Samungou died in 1942 without any legal heir. Iboton died in 1982 leaving behind the plaintiff-appellant as the sole heir. Tharongoubi Devi, daughter of Cheiteina Singh had two sons namely Lala Singh and Ibohal Singh. Ibohal Singh was given in adoption to one Ch. Ibomcha Singh and the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Lala Singh was missing since 1944 and accordingly, is presumed to be dead. The further case of the plaintiff-appellant is that his father Iboton Singh allowed Tharongoubi Devi to reside in the suit land by constructing a house when she became a divorcee in 1963. She continued to remain in possession of the suit land till her death in 1994. During the lifetime of Iboton Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant, Tharongoubi Devi prayed for mutation of half of the plaint schedule A land as inherited and ancestral property but failed to get any order in her favour from the Revenue Court. After her death, plaintiff-appellant became the sole owner of the plaint schedule A land extending to .88 acres and is in possession of the same. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration as stated earlier.
4. The defendants-respondents in their written statement denied the allegation made in the plaint. It was the case of the respondents that under a mutual agreement between Cheiteina Singh and Iboton Singh, Schedule A land was divided between the surviving sons of late Manik Singh. According to the custom, Iboton Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant possessed northern half of the schedule A land, whereas, late Cheiteina Singh possessed southern half. Tharongoubi Devi inherited the said southern portion of land after death of Cheiteina and the defendants-respondents being heirs of Tharongoubi Devi are the owners of the southern half of the Schedule A property. The defendants-respondents also filed a separate counter-claim for declaration that the southern half of the Schedule A land is their inherited property and also for demolition of the structures indicated in the Schedule B of the counter-claim and for declaration that they are in khas possession of southern portion of Schedule A land.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed five issued such as:
(1) Who is/was the original owner of the suit land?
(2) Is there cause of action of the present suit?
(3) Is plaintiff entitled to the reliefs claimed?
(4) Is there cause of action of the defendants’ counter claim?
(5) Are defendants are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the counter claim?
6. On analysis of the evidence adduced in the suit, the Trial Court passed a decree declaring possession of the plaintiff-appellant over Schedule A land as his ancestral property.
7. After the suit was decreed in the above manner, the defendants-respondents filed Civil Review Cage No. 4 of 2006 challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said suit on the following grounds.
Trial Court did not decide issue No. 4 and issue was, “Have defend
