S. Serto, J. -
(1.) This is an appeal filed under section 96 of the CPC read with section-17 of the Mizoram Civil Court Act, directed against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2014, passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Aizawl, in Civil Suit No. 78/2009, and the decree dated 29.05.2014 drawn therein.
(2.) Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. J.C Lalnunsanga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 6.
(3.) The brief facts of the case as submitted by the learned counsel are as follows;
The appellant inherited a plot of land under the LSC No. 566/1992, located at Bawngkawn, Aizawl, and the building standing therein from her father namely, late Lalpuithanga. In the year 2009, the suit land was mutated in the name of the respondent No.1. The appellant challenged the same before the Civil Court by filing the Civil Suit No. 78/2009. In that suit, the respondent No.1 and the other respondents No. 3 to 6 were arrayed as the defendants. After the written statement were filed by the defendants, the following issues were framed;
(i). Whether the suit land is maintainable in its present form and style.
(ii). Whether the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants or not.
(iii). Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not.
(iv). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not, if so, to what extent. After the above stated issues were framed, the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent No.1 examined their respective witnesses and also exhibited the document in support of their respective case. There depositions of the witnesses were recorded and the learned Trial Court heard the parties and passed the judgment and decree which are impugned herein. The operative portions of the judgment and decree are reproduced here below;
"12. On going through the entire evidences of the rival parties and also taking into consideration the relevant documents available on record, it is evident that the plaintiff and her husband, V.Lalkunga (defendant No.2) has taken a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the defendant No.1, V.Zaliana in presence of reliable witnesses namely, Vanlalruata and Sangthanga. Although the plaintiff has tried her level best to give the impression that the loan taken by her husband from V.Zaliana by mortgaging LSC No. Azl-566 of 1992 was without knowledge and consent, it can be clearly seen from the deposition of the defendant No.1, V.Lalkunga who is the legal and lawful husband of the plaintiff, at least, at the relevant time of incident that he and his wife, Laltanpuii went to the residence of Mr. Vanlalruata for taking a loan of money and they requested him to find someone who can give loan by mortgaging LSC No. Azl-566 of 1992. The defendant No.2 also admitted the fact that Mr. Vanlalruata was present when he and his wife took money from the defendant No.1 (Defendant No.1 hnen atanga pawisa in lak chhuah lai hian Vanlalruata a awn ve tih hi a dik). Regarding the HMUN INLEINA LEHKHA (Ext.D1-2) exhibited by the defendant No.1, it is an admitted fact that it may not be acceptable in the eye of law. This is, however, actually a prescribed form provided by the Revenue Authorities for sale of immovable property. Whoever is selling his landed property has no choice but to obtain a copy of the said Form and submit after duly filled up and signed by the parties and their witnesses. Buyers or sellers have no option but to abide by the instructions of the competent authorities. Besides this, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, V.Laikunga are husband and wife at the relevant time of incident. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff and her husband (Defendant No.2, V.Lalkunga) have conspired together and pretended to divorce each other so as to avoid liabilities and responsibilities arising out of the loan taken by them from the defendant No.1 and filed the instant suit with mala fide intention against the interest of justice. Situated thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by her and the Issue No. (d) is decided against the plaintiff. On careful perusal of the evidences of the rival parties and relevant materials available on records, it has been revealed that the plaintiff and her husband, V.Lalkunga (defendant No.2) have borrowed Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only from the defendant No.1, V. Zaliana by mortgaging their LSC No. Azl-566 of 1992. The main purpose of filing the instant suit is to avoid payment of loan amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum. Both the parties have apparently admitted the fact that Rs. 2,00,000/- have already been paid to the defendant No.1 at the time of taking the said loan. However, the plaintiff shall not be allowed to escape from making payment of the said loan with interest to the defendant No.1 which she and her husband, V.Lalkunga have actually taken from the defendant No.1 before reliable witnesses. It may also be pertinent to mention herewith the fact that the land and building covered by LSC No.Azl-566 of 1992 could possibly carry a market value of Rs. 80 to 100 lakhs cannot be allowed to be forfeited just for Rs. 20,00,000/-
4. That the defendant No.1, V.Zaliana shall hand over LSC No. Azl-566 of 1992 to the Plaintiff, Laltanpuii on payment of loan amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 24.02.2009 till realization. Thereafter, the defendant No.3 to 6 shall get the ownership transferred in the name of the plaintiff, Laltanpuii on production of a copy of this judgment and order. The entire process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. If the plaintiff is unable to clear her debts as directed, the suit land and building covered by LSC No.Azl-566 of 1992 shall be sold on auction.
5. With the above, the instant civil suit is disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, mala fide intention of the plaintiff in making abortive attempt to avoid making payment of the loan she has taken and unnecessarily dragging the defendant No.1 to the Court for no fault of him, the plaintiff is liable to pay the costs of the suit which is quantified as Rs. 40,000/- and it shall be paid to the defendants No.1 through the Court. Given copy of the parties through their respective counsels. Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this day the 28th day of May, 2014 in my open Court."
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has filed the present appeal and challenged the same on the following grounds (grounds reproduced verbatim as given in the appeal);
"(a) For that the learned Trial Court has err in law and in facts. As such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.
(b) For that the learned Trial Court erred in giving relief to the respondent No.1 in the absence of any counter claim made by him during the course of the trial.
(c) For that the borrower i.e. the respondent No.2 should be directed to repay the loan if it is presumed that the said loan was taken from the respondent No.1.
(d) For that the LSC of the appellant was transferred and mutated in the name of the respondent No.1 on basis of fabricated and forged signatures of the appellant. In fact, the respondents had not been careful enough in there action while fabricating the requisite documents prescribed by the concerned authorities for transfer and mutation of LSC documents. Moreover, the appellant did not signed the "Application for transfer of ownership of LSC (HMINGTHLAK DILNA)' and the alleged signature of the appellant on the said document was not her signature but was a forged signature made by the respondent No. 1 and 2.
(e) For that on careful perusal of the alleged 'Hmun inleihna lehkha' it can be seen that the suit land was purported to have been sold by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 on 24.02.2009. However, there is no signature of the LSC holder i.e. Smit Laltangpuii and that the respondent No.1 and the VCP of Bawngkawn had already signed the same on 23.02.2009 and moreover, the said document had earlier been signed on 22.02.2009 by one of the witnesses namely Shri. V.Lalkunga who is the respondent No.2 herein. This clearly indicated that the transfer and mutation of the LSC in the name of the respondent No.1 was illegally done by the respondent on the mala-fide intention of the respondent No.1 & 2 and without knowledge and consent of the appellant. Hence, the action of the respondents in transferring the LSC cannot be accepted in the eye of law and the same cannot stands the scrutiny of law.
(f) For that even if it is presumed but not admitted that the appellant took a loan from the respondent No.1 on 26.02.2009 to be repaid on 20.07.2009 there is no question of submitting application for transfer of the mortgaged LSC either on 22.02.2009 or 23.02.2009 or 24.02.2009 prior to the taking of loan and that question of transferring the LSC on 25.02.2009 by the appellant to the respondent No.1 did not arise.
(g) For that the appellant did not signed the alleged 'INTIAMKAMNA (PROMISE LETTER)' dated 25.02.2009 and that Shri. Lalhmuaka and Keddy Laltanpuia who were shown to be the sons of the appellant are not her sons. Presuming but not admitting that the appellant took a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 25.02.2009 as reflected in the alleged 'INTIAMKAMNA' question of executing sale letter (HMUN INLEINA LEHKHA) dated 24.02.2009 by the appellant did not arise. This clearly revealed that the 'INTIAMKAMNA' dated 25.02.2009 is nothing but only a fabricated and forged document made by the respondent No. 1 & 2 in trying to achieve their illegal and shameful intention to snatch away the property of the appellant.
(h) For that the entire case of the respondents/defendants and all the documents relied upon them are hit by the Usurious Loan Act, the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act r/w Mizoram Stamp Amendment Act. In such a case, question of passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the respondents does not arise. (i) For that the facts and circumstances aforementioned and the grounds set forth are good grounds which call for interference of this Hon'ble Court".;