IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Ramalingam Sudhakar, J.
Moshhilpa Maring and Others – Appellants
Versus
Angom Amu Singh and Others – Respondents
CRP (CRP Art. 227) No. 9 of 2018
Decided On : 13-09-2018
Demarcation - Civil Revision Petition - O.S. No. 8/2003/18/2013 - Ext. 6, Order dated 17.01.1924 - Mimang Lok, U Tangji trees - Execution Case No. 2 of 2010 - W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 - Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011 - Deputy Commissioner, Chandel - Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench - MARSAC - Leibi Village - Kwatha Village
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed to demarcate the injunction suit against the present revision petitioners/defendants. The suit was decreed on 28.12.2009 based on Ext. 6, order dated 17.01.1924. An Execution Case No. 2 of 2010 was filed to execute the decree. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandel passed Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2011, which was challenged in W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The Execution Court rejected all objections raised by the revision petitioners and accepted the Deputy Commissioner's demarcation report. The Court found no serious error in the demarcation report, stating that it was within the scope of the decree and backed by a direction of the High Court. The Court dismissed the revision petition for lack of lawful reason to interfere with the order.
Issues: The main issue was the correctness of the demarcation report by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, and its compliance with the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the demarcation report was based on records and materials required by law, followed principles of natural justice, and was in line with the decree. The Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree, and the revision petition lacked merit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed for lack of lawful reason to interfere with the order.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. S. Sachindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Umakanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Imphal East in Execution Case No. 2 of 2010/3/2011/1/2013/22/2014/1/2016 Ref: O.S. No. 8/2003/18/2013.
3. The respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs/decree holders filed the suit to demarcate the injunction suit against the present revision petitioners/defendants. The suit was decreed on 28.12.2009 in the following manner:-
"1. For the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, it is ordered and decreed that the boundaries of Kwatha Village are and shall be those that are given in Ext. 6 i.e. order dated 17.1.1924 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24. Parties are directed to maintain these boundaries for all time to come. The boundaries as per Exbt. 6 will be demarcated and identified. Defendants' counter claim is accordingly disposed of. Composite decree be prepared accordingly. But no costs.
Sd/-
(M. Ibohal Singh)
Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West."
4. The decree was prepared on the basis of the judgment dated 28.12.2009 on same day and it reads as follows:-
"2. That in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 28.12.2009, a decree dated 28.12.2009 was prepared by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West as follows:
"For the aforesaid observations, reasons and findings, it is observed and decreed that the boundaries of Kwatha Village are and shall be those that are given in Ext. i.e. order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-1924. Parties are directed to maintain these boundaries for all time to come. The boundaries as per Exbt.-6 will be demarcated and identified. Defendants' counter claim is accordingly disposed of. Composite decree be prepared accordingly.
It is further ordered and decreed that parties will bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this day the 28th December, 2009.
Sd/-
(M. Ibohal Singh)
Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West."
5. In effect, the judgment and decree primarily relied upon Ext. 6 in the order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24, and the same is set out for better clarity:
"3. For more clarity, the operative portion of Ext. 6 i.e. order dated 17.01.1924 passed by the Court of the President of Manipur State Darbar in Hill Misc. Case No. 116 of 1923-24 is hereinafter reproduced:
"In future the boundary between Leibi+Goatha will be Mimang Lok (main Lairem Loksha).
The field at the head of this Lok will go to Leibi. The boundary is at the place where there are four "U Tangji" trees growing together.
6. Based on the judgment and decree, an Execution Case being No. No. 2 of 2010 came to be filed to execute the decree dated 28.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Manipur West in O.S. No. 8 of 2009. In the execution case, 2(two) orders were passed on 23.03.2010 and 28.06.2010. By this order, the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel, who is the head of the administration of the district wherein the two villages and the parties who are fighting for the demarcation of the boundary are situated, was directed to take up the task of demarcation. In the order, it was pointed out that the plaintiffs belong to "Meitei" community and the defendants belong to "Maring" community and in order to avoid communal feud at the time of demarcation, sufficient staff, members should be taken and the police authorities should be involved to avoid law and order situation. However, this order of the Execution court did not result in any fruitful action, forcing the decree holders to file W.P. (C) No. 427 of 2010 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, seeking to execu
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.