YOGITA JAIN Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN
LAWS(MANIP)-2021-4-5
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on April 20,2021

Yogita Jain Appellant
VERSUS
MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KH.NOBIN SINGH - (1.) Heard Shri T. Rajendra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants in MFA No.1 of 2017 and the respondents in MAF No.1 of 2021 while Shri H. Nabachandra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in MAF No.1 of 2021 and the respondent in MFA No. of 2017.
(2.) Since the above appeals have arisen out of a similar set of facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the convenience and in order to avoid any confusion, the parties in these two appeals have been described as the appellants/ respondents and the respondent/ appellant in line with the cause title as mentioned in the Misc. First Appeal being MFA No.1 of 2017.
(3.) *** 3.1 The MFA No.1 of 2017 preferred by the appellants/ respondents, is directed against the judgment and order dated 05-08-2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Civil Judge') in Judl. Misc. Case No. 288 of 2017 in Original Suit No.47 of 2017. The respondent/ appellant as the plaintiff filed the said O.S No.47 of 2017 praying for a decree for the recovery of possession of the suit premises; a decree for the declaration that the sale deed dated 15-01-2016 is void and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/ respondents from entering the suit land. 3.2 The averments made in the plaint are, in short, that in the last part of December, 2015, the respondent/ appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- from the appellants/ respondents by offering a mortgage of the suit land, for which he signed on some papers with the request to prepare a mortgage deed and left for Jaipur and returned on 23-01-2016. On his return, he was informed by the appellants/ respondents that the mortgage had been completed and registered, to which he remained contented with the intention to repay the amount. However, on 09-06-2017, the appellants/ respondents told him to vacate the suit land. 3.3 On a discreet enquiry, the respondent/ appellant discovered that a mutation order dated 02-02-2016 in Mutation Case No.158/SDC had been passed on the strength of a fabricated sale deed and being aggrieved by it, he filed a revision being Misc. Case No.41 of 2017 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing thereof. 3.4 The respondent/ appellant further discovered that in order to evict him from the suit land on the allegation that he was an unauthorised occupant, an application was submitted by the appellants/ respondents to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West who directed the SDM, Imphal West to make an enquiry and submit a report thereof. On 22-06-2017, the respondent /appellant filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.451 of 2017 before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West. On the same day, a copy of the order dated 19-06-2017 passed by the SDM under Section 133 of Cr.P.C was served upon him which directed him to vacate the suit land and remove the structure by 25-06-2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/ appellant filed a Cril. Revision No.8 of 2017 wherein this Court passed an order dated 30-06-2017 to the effect that till 05-07-2017, he should not be evicted from the site in issue which was extended till 07-07-2017 when this Court ordered that the SDM might proceed with the proceedings but no demolition should be undertaken without the leave of the Court. 3.5 In the meantime, on 05-07-2017, the appellants/ respondents with about 20/30 persons took the law in their hands; stormed into the suit land; destroyed and stole valuable articles. During the whole night, they continued the crime by locking the door and by putting ply board. Thus, the appellants/ respondents forcibly evicted the respondent/ appellant from some portions of the building which are described as Schedule-C and from that night, the appellants/ respondents had taken forcible possession of the suit land. The respondent/ appellant submitted a complaint to the DGP, Manipur with a copy endorsed to the Superintendent of Police, Imphal-West but to no effect which compelled his wife to approach the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur by way of a representation dated 07-07-2017. But no action was taken nor was an FIR registered by the police against the appellants/ respondents. The respondent/ appellant approached this Court by filing a Cril. Petition No.17 of 2017 wherein this Court vide its order dated 14-07-2017 directed the police to look into the matter and as the police failed to take any action, a contempt case (Cril) No.1 of 2017 was filed by him. 3.6 Along with the suit, the respondent/ appellant filed an application being Judl. Misc. Case No. 288 of 2017 for grant of mandatory ad-interim injunction order to restore possession of the suit premises in his favour as on 05-07-2017 and also to restrain the appellants/ respondents from entering into the suit premises; disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by him and executing any sale deed, gift deed or mortgage deed in respect of the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.