PANGEIJAM MUHON SINGH AND ORS. Vs. PAONAM GOURAMOHON AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of the original defendant No. 1 are the appellants in this Second Appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 for declaration of title and consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff Respondent No. 1 is that the paddy land under patta No. 16/535 I.E.T.(new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 304 extending to an area of.70 acre originally belonged to late Waikhom Chaoba Singh and later on it was given to his daughter, Waikhom (N) W.(O) Thotlei Devi as her "Awool -Lou" under a family arrangement which is the suit land. The father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1, late Paonam Nongyai Singh purchased the land from Thotlei Devi under a registered sale deed dated 8.12.1972 and took possession thereafter. After death of the father, plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been in cultivating possession of the suit land and has been paying land revenue. After death of the father of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, the other L.R.s such as mother and sister who were proforma defendants in the suit, did not claim any right and share in the suit land under a family arrangement and accordingly the plaintiff's name was duly recorded in the land records in respect of the suit land vide Mutation Case No. 74/A.S.S.O(Hq) of 1985. The original defendant No. 1 filed Revenue Revision Petition before the Director of Settlement and Land Records against the order of mutation dated 8.5.1972 in which the name of the father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had been mutated in respect of the suit land after the same was purchased from Thotlei Devi. In the said Revision case, the original defendant asserted that the suit land was mortgaged to him by late Waikhom Tharongou Singh under a registered mortgage deed on 2.3.1966 and since then he has been in possession of the suit land. The original defendant No. 1 also filed Civil Suit in the court of the learned Munsiff, Imphal east vide OS No. 9/86 seeking a declaration of title over the said property and also for delivery of possession against the legal heirs of late W. Tharongou and the said suit is still pending. On 30.6.1986 when the original defendant No. 1 made an attempt to enter into the suit land forcibly with the help of anti -social elements, proceeding u/s. 144 Cr.PC was initiated and an order was passed restraining the original defendant No. 1 and his privies from entering upon the suit land for a period of 2(two) months. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title and also for consequential reliefs.

(3.) THE Original defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff respondent No. 1. The case of the original defendant No. 1 was that late W. Th. Singh was the owner/pattadar of the disputed land having inherited from his late father. During lifetime of W. Th. Singh, said land was mortgaged by him with the original defendant No. 1 under a registered deed dt. 2.3.1966 and subsequently it was sold to defendant No. 1 on payment of Rs. 1400/ -. It was also contended in the written statement that at the time of execution and registration of the mortgage deed the patta Number of the suit land had been wrongly described in the mortgage deed though possession of the suit land had been delivered to the defendant No. 1 by virtue of the mortgage. Subsequently the original defendant No. 1 came to know that in the Revenue record, Smt. Thotlei, had been recorded as owner of the suit land and therefore a revision was filed challenging the mutation made in favour of late father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 on the basis of the sale deed purportedly executed by Smt. Thotlei in favour of late father of plaintiff No. 1. It was specifically contended by defendant No. 1 that by virtue of the mortgage deed, he was in occupation of the land for more than 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 and therefore acquired title by way of adverse possession.