ARIBAM ONGBI YAIMABI SARMA AND OTHERS Vs. NINGTHOUJAM NINGOL NOYON
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Aribam Ongbi Yaimabi Sarma And Others
Ningthoujam Ningol Noyon
Click here to view full judgement.
B.N. Sarma, J. -
(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order dated 30 -3 -1972 passed by Shri S. Gourachand Singh, Munsiff. Imphal East, in Judicial Misc. Case No. 184 of 1971 allowing an application of the opposite party under Rules 100 and 101 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing restoration of her possession over a plot of homestead land of which the present petitioner obtained possession through Court on 30 -3 -1971 in execution of the decree obtained by him in T. S. No 39/63/19/65 in the Court of the Munsiff No. III, Manipur. against one Amu Singh.
(2.) THE case of the opposite party in the said Misc. Case was that the disputed plot of homestead land originally belonged to her father late Ningthoujam Maipak Singh and that on his death she inherited the same. She stated that during his lifetime her father allowed the petitioner to live on the disputed land. After her father's death, the petitioner purchased the land from one Khundrakpam Tomba Singh, who posed himself to be the only son of Ningthoujam Maipak Singh on or about 22 -3 -1948 and managed to get his name mutated and also to obtain a separate patta behind the back of the opposite party. The petitioner however according to the opposite party, left the suit land for unknown destination about 19 years ago and since then the opposite party had been residing on the disputed land by her own right. She further stated in her petition that she allowed Amu Singh (defendant in T. S. No. 39/63/19/651 to live on the land for some years, but he also left the place leaving the same in possession of the opposite party. While the opposite party was thus in possession of the land by her own right and on her own account, it was stated, the petitioner obtained possession over the land with the help of police by evicting her in execution of the decree obtained against Amu Singh in the above suit to which she was not a party. She accordingly filed the application for restoration of her possession under Rules 100 and 101 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 184 of 1971. The present petitioner who was the opposite party in the said Misc. Judl. Case, contested the same denying that the opposite party was in possession of the disputed land on her own account, as alleged by her. According to him, the opposite party acted merely as a stooge of the judgment -debtor Amu Singh, who having failed to resist the decree even upto the second appeal before, the Judicial Commissioner, has now set up the opposite party to resist the execution of the decree.
(3.) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in course of the enquiry and on a consideration of the same the learned Munsiff held that the present opposite party, who was the petitioner in the case, was in possession of the property on 30 -7 -1971 on her own account and that she was dispossessed by the present petitioner in execution of the aforesaid decree. With these findings, the learned Munsiff allowed the application filed by the opposite party for restoration of her possession.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.