KHAIDEM KALACHAND SINGH Vs. KHUNDRAKPAM BANAKANTA SINGH
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Khaidem Kalachand Singh
Khundrakpam Banakanta Singh
Click here to view full judgement.
NOBIN SINGH,J. -
(1.) Heard Shri M. Rarry, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Y. Lokendro, Advocate for the respondent.
(2.) The instant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Imphal West in Judl. Misc. Case No. 353 of 2017 which was filed in the suit being O.S No.54 of 2017 under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and the prayers made therein read as under:
"a. a decree declaring that the registered sale deed, dated being No. 1480 of the Sub-Registered (H.Q) Imphal, Manipur, dated 25.06.2012, is a deed of mortgage;
b. a decree for redemption of mortgage on repayment of the loan/mortgage amount by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of the suit land;
c. a decree for perpetual injunction to retrain the defendant, his men and previes from entering into the suit land and also from claiming any right and title to the suit land on the basis of said sale deed (by nomenclature) by the defendant in any manner;
d. any other order (s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, for ends of justice and equity;"?
(3.) The sum and substance of the averments made in the plaint filed by the respondent as recorded in the impugned order dated 19-05-2018, are that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only from the petitioner on agreement to execute a simple mortgage. On 25-06-2012 when the respondent went to the office of the Sub-Registrar (HQ), Imphal for the purpose of execution and registration of a deed of mortgage, the petitioner and his advocate were present with the stamp papers already prepared by them. The respondent put his signature and finger prints on the said stamp papers as per their directions without knowing the contents thereof. On 30-05-2017 when the respondent went to the petitioner for repayment of the borrowed amount with accrued interest thereon, he refused to accept the same stating that he had already purchased the suit land from the respondent through a sale deed. On the same day, he made enquiries from the revenue authorities and found that the suit land was mutated in the name of the petitioner on the strength of the alleged sale deed dated 25-06-2012. The respondent never intended to execute the alleged sale deed and after the refusal of receiving the borrowed amount, the petitioner started disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit land by the respondent. Hence, the suit was filed by the respondent praying for the aforesaid reliefs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.