Back
2019 Supreme(Manipur) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Sanjenbam Momon Singh - Appellants
Vs.
Konthoujam Paka Singh and Ors. - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 2 of 2019
Decided On : 31-07-2019
For the Appellant :S. Sachindra, Advocate
For the Respondents:N. Mahendra, Advocate
Headnote:
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Section 4 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 21, Rule 58 - Main ground of objection pleaded by appellant is that he had purchased aforesaid land from daughter of under agreement on after payment of and thereafter his name was recorded in revenue records - According to appellant since then he was in possession and enjoyment of said land without any hindrance from any person and that judgment debtor has no right upon said land - By order learned Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by appellant - Held, it is to be held that transfer from to her daughter is not a valid transfer and is mere entry of name - Further subsequent transfer of property in question from to appellant was also done without following due process of law and was mere entry of names probably in collusion with officials of Revenue Department - Moreover in absence of any legally enforceable document and rightful title over land in question appellant has no locus standi to file petition seeking to raise attachment - As rightly held by Court below factual matrix of instant case and that of supra relied upon by learned counsel for appellant are quite different and cannot be applied to present case - As stated supra so called transfer was made after decree and dismissal of appeal preferred against judgment and also after filing of Execution Petition by respondents 1 and 2 - Thus it is clear that subsequent transactions were made with malafide intention in order to frustrate execution of decree - Appellant cannot take advantage taking a plea that he is in possession of land in question - Appeal is Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.12.2018 passed in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 214 of 2018 on the File of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal East.
2. The appellant is the petitioner/objector and the respondents are respondents in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 214 of 2018.
3. Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 214 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 58 of CPC seeking to release agricultural land under Patta No. 659 covered by Dag. No. 1002/1365 measuring 0.93 acre situated at No. 81, Moidangpok standing in the name of the appellant.
4. The main ground of objection pleaded by the appellant is that he had purchased the aforesaid land from the daughter of Ch. Meera Devi under agreement on 07.7.2012 after payment of Rs. 9,00,001/- and thereafter, his name was recorded in the revenue records. According to the appellant, since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land without any hindrance from any person and that the judgment debtor has no right upon the said land. By the order dated 11.12.2018, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 that the land in question was purchased by the third respondent/judgment debtor in the name of his wife Ch. Meera Devi and it was purchased for the benefit of the judgment debtor. However, the said plea was not proved by the respondents 1 and 2, who are decree holders before the Court below. He would submit that the decree holders did not discharge their burden to prove that Ch. Meera Devi is not the real owner of the property in question, but is only a benami.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that even though the appellant who is a third person has no legally valid title over the land in question, after having purchased the land from the daughter of the owner under an agreement, there is no need to disturb his possession of the land since the decree holders are not able to prove that the land is a benami property of the judgment debtor, but recorded in the name of his wife Ch. Meera Devi.
8. The learned counsel then submitted that since the judgment debtor has no right over the land in question, no person except the real owner i.e., Ch. Meera Devi has right to disturb the possession of the land by the appellant even though he has no valid title over the land and he is only a mere pattadar. According to the learned counsel, so long as Ch. Meera Devi remains as real owner of the land, the judgment debtor has no right over the land and the Court below would have attached the land to disturb the possession of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmities and also not sustainable in the eye of law. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1356.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/decree holders submitted that the appellant claims that the transaction between the appellant and the daughter of the judgment debtor is a genuine transaction and further asserted that there is no basis to claim that it was a genuine transaction in relation to the property under attachment. He would submit that no legal value could be given to the so called agreement for sale dated 07.7.2012 between the appellant and the daughter of the judgment debtor since it is unregistered. There can be no transfer of any right, title or interest in any immovable property except by way of a registered document.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that the agreement dated 07.7.2012 is a concocted one and the revenue record entries do not confer any title. Moreover, the mutation of revenue records are subsequent to the date of decree da
