Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Shri Soubam Kullachandra Singh, S/o late S. Kulla Singh - Appellant
Versus
Langpoklakpam Ibocha Singh, S/o late L. Muhon Singh - Respondent
R.S.A. NO. 5 OF 2013
Decided On : 28-06-2016
ADVERSE POSSESSION - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND INJUNCTION - ADVERSE POSSESSION NOT PLEADED - APPELLANT CANNOT CLAIM TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from entering into his land and disturbing his peaceful possession. The appellant claimed that he purchased the suit land from one Langpoklakpam Tamphajao Singh in 1965 and has been in possession of the land for the last 45 years without any disturbances. The respondent contested the suit and claimed that the suit land belonged to his late father and that he is the owner of the same. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's counterclaim.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant failed to establish his title and ownership over the suit land and that his possession of the suit land, however long it may have been, cannot ripen into ownership of the same. The court further held that the appellant cannot claim title by adverse possession as he did not plead the same in the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had purchased the suit land from Langpoklakpam Tamphajao Singh? 2. Whether the appellant has been in possession of the suit land for a continuous period of 45 years openly, visibly and independently and exclusively against the respondent? 3. Whether the appellant can claim title by adverse possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant failed to establish that he purchased the suit land from Langpoklakpam Tamphajao Singh. 2. The court held that the appellant was in possession of the suit land for a continuous period of 45 years openly, visibly and independently and exclusively against the respondent. 3. The court held that the appellant cannot claim title by adverse possession as he did not plead the same in the trial court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Heard Mr. Y.M. Lokendro, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. S. Dijeshwor, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant.
2. This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Learned District Judge Manipur East in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2012, which was instituted on an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2012 passed in O.S. No. 21 of 2009 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West.
The appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Imphal West (O.S. No. 21 of 2009) praying for permanent injunction to restraint the defendant(respondent in this case) from entering into what he claims his own land being under Patta No. 9 (old), 310 covered by C.S. Dag No. 645, measuring 0.38 acre and situated at new Village No. 83 Lamjaotongba under Imphal West Sub Division (hereinafter referred to as suit land) and disturbing his peaceful possession of the same by claiming as follows :
3. That, he purchased the suit land from one Langpoklakpam Tamphajao Singh on 03.02.1965 and on the same day a sale deed to that effect was executed and registered as registration No.640 in the office of Special Sub Registrar, Imphal with late Mohon Singh, younger brother of the land owner as attesting witness. After he purchased the land, he invested thousands of rupees for the development of the land, and constructed a dwelling house and out house on the eastern portion of the land and also planted various types of plants and seasonal vegetables from time to time. And in such manner he has been in possession of the land for the last 45 years without any disturbances from any quarter.
4. That, on 14.08.2008, he went to pay land revenue for the suit land and on that day he came to know that the name of Langpoklakpam Mohon Singh from Moiranghanuba Leirak was wrongly recorded in the record of rights of the suit land by way of inheritance from his father. After coming to know this fact, he filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District for correction of the land record in respect of the suit land and the same was registered as Revenue Misc. Case No. 4 of 2008. Following the application, the Deputy Commissioner directed the S.D.O, Patsoi to enter his name (the plaintiff) in the record of rights of the suit land. In accordance with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, his name was recorded in the record of rights of the suit land.
5. However, on 04.03.2009 at 1.00 p.m. the defendant along with his men came to the suit land and tried to put up a fence on the boundaries of the suit land, but due to his timely action, the defendant and his men could not enter the suit land. Therefore, in order to prevent such occurrence in future, he approached the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West for an order of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant, his men and privies from entering into the suit land.
The defendant contested the suit and at the same time made a counter claim by claiming as follows :
6. That, the suit land belonged to his late father Langpoklakpam Munal Singh and on the death of his father on 15.08.1994 right and title over the same, by inheritance, has automatically devolved on him, therefore, he is the owner of the same and not the plaintiff. That the land purchased by the plaintiff from Langpoklakpam Tamphajao Singh did not include his land under C.S. Dag No.645 which he inherited from his father but it was wrongly included in the schedule appended to the sale deed of the land under Patta No. 82/308 covered by CS Dag No. 643, measuring 0.78 acre, situated at Village No. 83, Lamjaotongba, Imphal West District (the suit land). That in the schedule of the land purchased by the plaintiff instead of giving the land under CS Dag No. 644, the land of Langam Bilashini De
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
