Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Smt. Ningombam (O) Kumudini Devi – Appellant
Versus
Shri Ningombam Bira Singh S/o Late N. Iboton Singh – Respondent
MAF No. 2 of 2013
Decided On : 18-07-2016
Injunction - Property Dispute - MLR & LR Act (1960) Section 43(3), Indian Evidence Act (1872) Section 114, CPC (1908) Order 39 Rule 1 - The court discussed the legality of contradicting findings of the reports submitted by different authorities as to the Revenue jurisdiction of the suit land and the principle of 'settled possession'. The court relied on MLR & LR Act (1960) Section 43(3) and Indian Evidence Act (1872) Section 114 to presume the correctness of public documents. The court also considered CPC (1908) Order 39 Rule 1 and emphasized the need for a threat of imminent harm for granting temporary injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought injunction against the defendants to restrain them from using a pathway claimed to be their private pathway. The trial court granted the injunction, but the defendants appealed, arguing that the injunction was uncalled for as they had been using the pathway for many years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's conclusion was based on a misconception of fact and law. It emphasized the need for a threat of imminent harm for granting temporary injunction and set aside the injunction, allowing the defendants to continue using the pathway pending disposal of the suit.
Issues: The issues included the legality of contradicting findings of the reports submitted by different authorities as to the Revenue jurisdiction of the suit land, the principle of 'settled possession', and the need for a threat of imminent harm for granting temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that a threat of imminent harm is necessary for granting temporary injunction, as emphasized in CPC (1908) Order 39 Rule 1. The court also relied on MLR & LR Act (1960) Section 43(3) and Indian Evidence Act (1872) Section 114 to presume the correctness of public documents.
Final Decision: The court set aside the injunction, allowing the defendants to continue using the pathway pending disposal of the suit, and directed the trial court to complete the trial within a period of 6 months.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 104 (i) read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC against the order dated 26.08.2012 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division No. II, Manipur East in Judicial Misc. Case No. 127 of 2012. The background from which the appellants filed the appeal is as follows:
2. The respondents (who shall thereafter be referred to as plaintiffs/respondents) filed an Original Suit registered as O.S. No. 21 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division No. II, Manipur East praying for perpetual injunction against the appellants (who shall thereafter be referred to as defendants/appellants) to restrain them from entering and using a pathway measuring about 10 feet by width and 220 feet in length claiming it to be their private pathway constructed inside their own land being under Patta No. 335 (New), covered by C.S. Dag No. 644, of Village No. 58 Thongju. Along with the Original Suit, they also filed a Judicial Misc. Case in the same Court registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 127 of 2012, praying for, temporary injunction to restrain the respondents (defendants in that case) from entering and using the same till the disposal of the Original Suit.
3. The plaintiffs/respondents’ claim in the misc. application is that the suit land is a part of their patta land and it is their exclusive private pathway. However, one Mr. N. Heiton Singh who was their close relative and lived in his own land situated on the west of the suit land was allowed to use the pathway on his request and with the understanding or under an agreement that a portion of his land which lies on the east of his land would be used by the plaintiffs/respondents in exchange. Mr. N. Heiton Singh left his land about 35 (thirty five) years ago and the defendants/appellants came and lived in his land about 25 years ago and continued to use the pathway as was done by Mr. N. Heiton Singh. But suddenly, in the month of June, 2012 the defendants/appellants asked the plaintiffs/ respondents to cut all the trees that they had planted in the land they were allowed to use by Mr. N. Heiton Singh under the agreement or arrangement as stated above and to vacate the place, thereby negating the terms of the agreement. The defendants/appellants having violated the agreement, no longer has any right to use their (plaintiff’s) private pathway. Therefore, they have to be stopped/restrained from using the same.
4. Against the claims and prayer of the plaintiffs/respondent, the defendants/appellants submitted that the pathway is a public by-lane connecting the locality of both the parties with the main road, and it is a khas land, therefore, used by all the people living in the same locality. They also submitted that the pathway being the only ingress and egress to and from their land to the main road they have been using the same for the last more than 40 years. Therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents are not entitled to use the same exclusively by preventing them.
Without much going into details, the parties submitted documents in support of their respective claims before the Trial Court.
The plaintiffs/respondents submitted the following documents:
1. Certified copy of the Jamabandi of the land under Patta No. 46 (Old) 335 (New) Dag No. 644, recorded in the joint name of N. Bira Singh and N. Achou Singh.
2. Certified copy of the Jamabandi of the land under Patta No. 46 (Old) 332 (New) Dag No. 568/641, recorded in the name of (Late) N. Heiton Singh.
3. Certified copy of Sketch map (Village map) 4. Jamabandi recorded with the name of N. Brojen under Patta No. 46 (old) 337/1291(New) Dag No. 648/1290.
The defendants/appellants also submitted the following documents:
1. Certified copy of the Jamabandi of the land under Patta No. 64 (Old) 337/1290 (New) Dag No. 648/1595, recorded in the name of Ningombam Nabakishore Singh.
2. The certified to be Xerox copy of the report of circle Mandol, IE, SDC, IE, Bashikhong in c/w Demarcation Case No. 20/SDC/IE/(B) of 2011.
3. The c
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
