JUDGMENT : Lanusungkum Jamir, J. Heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. This regular first appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizawl District, Aizawl. 2. The plaintiff/respondents who are members of the UPC of Mizoram had filed Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 against the present appellant claiming certain properties which were already settled in the names of the Church, i.e. UPC as their properties. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondents that the North Mizoram District UPC represented by the respondent No. 1 is the owner of all the District properties held in the name of North Mizoram District UPC such as the District Headquarters Office building, Printing Press and the Building thereof, bookroom, including the building and all the books and all other movable properties inside the building, Sunday School Building, all located at Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl, lands under Pass No. 8 of 1986 located at Mualpui, Aizawl, a plot of Land located at Kawltheihuan, Aizawl, two vehicles (Gypsy No. ZRA/0051 and Maruti Car MZ 01 2465) and all Pastor Quarters, including those located at Tuikhuahtlang, within the area of North Mizoram District UPC. The plaintiff/respondent No. 2 is the owner of the land covered by Misc. Pass No. M.48/1954 which was superceded by Misc. Pass No. M.89/1954 which was again superceded by Misc. Pass No. 13 of 1970 located at Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl where all the North Mizoram District Headquarters office, local Church Building, Sunday School Hall, Press Building, Bookroom and two buildings meant for Pastor Quarters are located. It was also claimed that respondent No. 3 is the owner of land and Church building located at Chanmari, Aizawl covered by Misc. Pass No. 27 of 1972 which was purchased from R. Thanga (L) for construction of Church building which was constructed and inaugurated on 15.2.1976. Further, it was also claimed that respondent No. 4 is the owner of land under Land Lease No. 6 of 1993 alongwith the Church building which was constructed between 1990 to 1992. Pass No. 27 of 1972 which was purchased from R. Thanga (L) for construction of Church building which was constructed and inaugurated on 15.2.1976. Further, it was also claimed that respondent No. 4 is the owner of land under Land Lease No. 6 of 1993 alongwith the Church building which was constructed between 1990 to 1992. It was therefore the claim of the plaintiff/respondents that due to their position in the UPC Mizoram, they are the owners of the properties which was earlier controlled and administered by the UPC North East India. The defendant/appellant filed written statement in the said Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 stating that the respondent No. 1 is not the District Superintendent of the North Mizoram District UPC and that respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are also not Chairman of the respective Church Board Committee of UPC, Tuikhuahtlang Aizawl, UPC Chanmari Aizawl, UPC Chaltlang Aizawl and therefore the respondents have no locus standi to sue the defendant/appellant on behalf of the UPC North Mizoram. After filing the written statement, the learned Trial Court had framed 11 issues and after examination of witnesses and on hearing the parties, the impugned judgment and decree was passed on 9.8.2011 whereby the learned Trial Court had distributed the properties between the appellant and the respondents. There was a contradiction and confusion in the distribution of properties contained in the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 and therefore the respondents/appellants filed an application for amendment of the decree under Section 152 CPC read with Section 151 CPC praying for amendment of the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties had amended the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 by an Order dated 10.8.2011 and thereafter the parties had occupied the respective given properties. Thereafter, the appellants had filed Execution Case No. 81 of 2011 for implementation of the amended judgment and decree dated 10.8.2011 which was contested by the respondent by filing written objection in Execution Case No. 81 of 2011. The learned Executing Court had thereafter passed order dated 6.3.2012. Thereafter, the appellants had filed Execution Case No. 81 of 2011 for implementation of the amended judgment and decree dated 10.8.2011 which was contested by the respondent by filing written objection in Execution Case No. 81 of 2011. The learned Executing Court had thereafter passed order dated 6.3.2012. The respondent being aggrieved with the amendment of judgment and decree dated 10.8.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 as well as the order dated 6.3.2012 passed in Execution Case No. 81 of 2011 had filed Civil Revision Petition No. 13 of 2012 before this Court which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 29.11.2012 by setting aside the amended judgment and order dated 10.8.2011. Accordingly, the appellants had filed the present appeal as they are aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996. 3. Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) was founded in America in the year 1945. The United Penti-costal Church (UPC) was first established in Aijal (Aizawl) Lushai Hills on 19.2.1950 by Rev. E.L. Seism under the UPC India and was under the administrative control of the UPCI. All the UPC Churches and properties in the Lushai Hills were under the administrative control of the UPC India Unit. Thereafter, in the year 1969, the UPC India was bifurcated into two and the UPC North East India Unit was formed with its Headquarters at Shillong and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No. 100/1969 dated 26.3.1969 and accordingly, all the UPC Churches and properties thereafter came under the administrative control of the UPC North East India. After the Lushai Hills District became a Union Territory in 1972, the UPC North East India was divided into 6 administrative Districts/Units. Out of the 6 administrative Districts, 3 Districts were located in Mizoram, namely, North Mizo District, Lunglei District and Chhimtuipui District and all the properties of the UPC owned and acquired by the different administrative Districts of UPC and local Churches of UPC are the properties of UPC North East India. At the time of filing the suit by the plaintiffs/respondents, there were 10 districts in the UPC North East India and presently there are 11 Administrative District under the UPC North East India. At the time of filing the suit by the plaintiffs/respondents, there were 10 districts in the UPC North East India and presently there are 11 Administrative District under the UPC North East India. From amongst the 11 Administrative Districts, 4 are in Mizoram namely, Aizawl East District, North Mizoram District, Lunglei and Chhimtuipui District. The other remaining districts under the UPC North Eastern States are (1) Barak District (2) Churachanpur District (3) Chandel District (4) Imphal District (5) South East Nagaland District (6) Central District, Shillong and (7) Tripura District. On 1.4.1995, some members from the UPC North Mizoram District under the UPC North East India left the UPC North East India and formed the UPC of Mizoram wherein the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also amongst those members. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 also left the UPC North East India and joined the UPC of Mizoram on 20.9.1995. The UPC of Mizoram has its headquarter at Aizawl. There was no existence of UPC Mizoram and it was only in the year 1995 that the said UPC Mizoram (respondents) was formed after they had parted ways from the UPC North East India. The present members of the UPC Mizoram were all members of the UPC North East India till 1995 and therefore the claim of the respondents as regard to the properties of the appellant is totally misleading inasmuch as at no point of time, they had any ownership, right or title over the said properties which was completely under the UPC North East India. He also submits that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has filed the plaint as plaintiff in their own individual capacity without any representative character. Such being the position, the plaintiffs/respondents has no locus standi to represent the UPC Mizoram which is also not a registered body. It is submitted that no authorization has been given by the UPC Mizoram to the plaintiffs/respondents to file a suit on behalf of UPC Mizoram and therefore that being the position, the learned Trial Court should have dismissed the plaint. However, it has proceeded by passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011. It is also submitted that the plaintiff/respondents had violated the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC to file the suit in a representative capacity and therefore the same should have been dismissed as the plaintiff/respondents have no locus standi. However, it has proceeded by passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011. It is also submitted that the plaintiff/respondents had violated the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC to file the suit in a representative capacity and therefore the same should have been dismissed as the plaintiff/respondents have no locus standi. To this effect, he submits that the evidence before the learned Trial Court would clearly indicate that the plaintiff/respondents were at best an off shoot of UPC North East India and they have no legal right to claim any properties more particularly when the suit was filed in an individual capacity without any authorization from the other members of the UPC Mizoram. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant also submits that the UPC North East India is a registered body which was registered as early as 1969 and has it own Bye-laws. The evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents shows that they were part and parcel of UPC North East India prior to 1995 and therefore the respondents could not have any right over the properties of the Church that they have left voluntarily. The UPC North East India being a registered body and the properties having been acquired by the UPC North East India, the question of giving away properties to a body which is not registered is totally illegal and the learned Trial Court had miserably failed to look into that issue. He submits that the exhibits would clearly show that the said land Passes were all made prior to 1995, i.e. before the UPC Mizoram came into existence. This being the admitted position, the question of dividing properties between the appellant and the respondents does not arise and therefore the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 deserves to be set aside and quashed. He also submits that in some similar matter, it has been decided that the properties in those cases were declared to be that of the UPC North East India. He has cited and produced a judgment passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) passed in Title Suit No. 3/1996 pertaining to Lunglei District and submits that the learned Trial Court should have followed the same inasmuch as it was the UPC North East India who were the legal and rightful owner of the properties. He has cited and produced a judgment passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) passed in Title Suit No. 3/1996 pertaining to Lunglei District and submits that the learned Trial Court should have followed the same inasmuch as it was the UPC North East India who were the legal and rightful owner of the properties. Further submission is forwarded by the learned senior counsel that while passing the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011, it had distributed some properties without any application of mind, thereby creating total confusion and chaos. He reiterated that as the properties were under the sole administrative control of the UPC North East India prior to coming into being of UPC of Mizoram in 1995, the question of dividing properties between the appellant and the respondents does not arise under any circumstances and therefore submits that the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 deserves to be set aside and quashed and that the appellant be declared as the sole owner of the disputed properties in the suit. 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellants submits at the outset that the UPC Mizoram has tried to get its registration under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1995. However, as a suit being Civil Suit No. 6 of 1996 was filed against the said registration, the UPC Mizoram could not be registered as of now. He also submits that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was not applicable in the Mizo District at that relevant point of time and therefore whether UPC Mizoram is registered or not is of no consequence. He also submits that in a similar case i.e. Title Suit No. 1/1996, the learned Trial Court had distributed properties between the parties, which was accepted by the appellant and also acted upon. Therefore, when in similar matters, the appellant can accept division of properties, it is not understood how and why the appellant in the present case are being affected or has any grievance with regard to such division of properties more particularly, when the appellant were also a party in that particular Title Suit No. 1/1996. Therefore, when in similar matters, the appellant can accept division of properties, it is not understood how and why the appellant in the present case are being affected or has any grievance with regard to such division of properties more particularly, when the appellant were also a party in that particular Title Suit No. 1/1996. It is also submitted that the UPC Mizoram was in existence as early as 1950 and therefore considering the respondents to be an off-shoot of the appellants does not arise and therefore the learned Trial Court had made no error while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2011. 6. He also submits that the disputed properties were never the properties of the UPC of North East India at any point of time and as per Clauses 10 and 11 of the Manual of the UPC of North East India, all the properties and assets of UPC North East India should be registered in the name of the Treasurer or General Secretary. As none of the disputed properties have been registered either in the name of Treasurer or General Secretary of UPC of North East India, the claim of the appellant is totally incorrect and misplaced. It is further submitted that the respondents Churches formed separate entities of their own so far as ownership acquisition and position of properties were concerned and that the appellant had made no contribution for the said properties either for purchase of land or for construction of Church building and therefore submits that the claim of the appellant that the plaintiff/respondent has no right to ownership over the disputed properties is totally incorrect. Further he submits that the Societies Registration Act does not apply to the religious society and therefore whether the respondents or the appellants are registered under the Society Registration Act has no consequence for adjudication of the present case in hand. Another submission of Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the respondents is that in the Trial Court, no counter claim has been filed by the appellant as provided under the Civil Procedure Code and in the absence of such counter claim, the appellant cannot file the present appeal claiming right over the disputed properties. 7. In reply, Mr. Another submission of Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the respondents is that in the Trial Court, no counter claim has been filed by the appellant as provided under the Civil Procedure Code and in the absence of such counter claim, the appellant cannot file the present appeal claiming right over the disputed properties. 7. In reply, Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel submits that the claim of the respondents that they were in existence since 1950 is totally misleading and unwarranted inasmuch as Mizoram came into being only in the year 1972 when it become a Union Territory and prior to that it was called the Lushai Hills. Therefore, the existence of UPC Mizoram since 1950 cannot under any circumstances be construed to be correct and that the plaintiff/respondents cannot claim any property prior to 1995 inasmuch as the UPC Mizoram came into existence only in 1995. The evidence on record would clearly show that they were an off-shoot or breakaway group of UPC North East India and therefore the claim of the respondents that they were in existence since 1950 is incorrect and misleading. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the records as well as the LCR which was requisitioned by this Court. 9. From the deposition of the PW 1, it is seen that they used to give 1/10th Tithe to the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 to show their brotherhood and that the Mizoram UPC has not been registered under any provision of law so far. PW 1 has also stated that he was ordained by the General Superintendent of. UPC North East India in the ordination service conducted by Rev. K. Satinvela. Further, he has also stated that he used to be a delegate in the UPC North East India General Conference after he was ordained as Pastor in the year 1986. PW 2 in his deposition has stated that he had joined UPC in the year 1990 in the North Mizoram District Headquarter Church and that he has no knowledge as to whether the UPC International headquarter had contributed any money toward construction of headquarter Church at Tuikhuahtlang. PW 2 in his deposition has stated that he had joined UPC in the year 1990 in the North Mizoram District Headquarter Church and that he has no knowledge as to whether the UPC International headquarter had contributed any money toward construction of headquarter Church at Tuikhuahtlang. PW 2 further states that the UPC Mizoram was started in the year 1995 by bifurcating from UPC North East India and before 1995 the headquarter Church was looked after by Pastors appointed by UPC North East India. He further states that UPC Mizoram rules and regulation were made in the year 1995 before they applied for registration. 10. The examination-in-Chief of the plaintiff No. 3 also indicates that after its inception in Mizoram, the UPC Mizoram has not been registered as a Society. However, in 1969 to enable them to peacefully work with the neighboring Churches, they procured a society registration at Shillong in the name of UPC North East India. He has particularly stated that as their problem started in 1994, they parted their ways in the middle of 1995 with the UPC of North East India. In cross examination, he has also stated that before 1995, their Church was looked after by the Pastor appointed by the UPC North East India. However, since 1995 after UPC of Mizoram was formed, separate Bye-laws were made to administer the Churches under the UPC of Mizoram. He has also stated that in the Veng (locality), wherever UPC Churches were established by the UPC of North East India after 1995, there are parallel locality Churches under UPC of Mizoram. 11. PW 4 in examination-in-chief has stated that as time went by, problem started prevailing in and around the year 1994, amongst the UPC North East India. As the problem increased, Chaltlang UPC Church Board Committee decided that it was not worthwhile to work with UPC North East India and they therefore put an end to their relation in Ministry on 8.9.1995. In cross examination, he has stated that his father was a licensed Minister of UPC North East India. He has one brother and one sister and both of them are in UPC North East India since their birth. 12. In cross examination, he has stated that his father was a licensed Minister of UPC North East India. He has one brother and one sister and both of them are in UPC North East India since their birth. 12. From a consideration of the above statement made by the plaintiff witnesses, it can be seen that the UPC Mizoram is not a registered body and that the UPC Mizoram is a breakaway group from the UPC North East India. It can also be ascertained that the UPC Mizoram came into existence only in the year 1995 after some misunderstanding with the UPC North East India. This being the position based on evidence, more particularly the plaintiff/respondents witness, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that the UPC Mizoram was already in existence since 1950 and that they are a separate entity. 13. Coming to the exhibit, it can be seen that by Misc. Pass No. M.48/1954 (Exhibit P-I), the UPC, Aijal was allowed to build an office building within the compound of the present Church building. By Misc. Pass No. M.89/1954, the UPC, Aijal was allowed to build the Church and office building at the site measuring 164 x 48 feet above the road near the Nepali School. The said Pass superseded Misc. Pass No. M.55/1951 and Misc. Pass No. M.48/1954 and was exhibited as Exhibit P2. Again, Exhibit P4 which is Misc. Pass No. M.13/1970 indicates that the UPC Headquarter, Aizawl was granted a pass for an area of land measuring 16,652 square feet (appx.) at Aizawl comprising of the existing Church building as defined in the boundary description given therein. Misc. Pass No. M.13/1970 superseded Misc. Pass No. M.89/1954. From the aforesaid exhibits, it can also be seen that the Misc. passes were issued to the UPC, headquarter, Aizawl and not to the UPC Mizoram. 14. A perusal of the Exhibit D1 which is an application for certificate in the UPC of North East India would show that the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1 had applied for local license from the UPC of North East India on 21.11.1979. This application made by the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1 would indicate that he was under the UPC North East India and had applied for local license in the year 1979. This application made by the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1 would indicate that he was under the UPC North East India and had applied for local license in the year 1979. If as submitted earlier that the UPC Mizoram was already in existence since 1950, this Court does not see any reason as to why the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1 who is said to be representing UPC Mizoram should have applied for a local license from the UPC North East India and not from UPC of Mizoram. 15. Therefore, a proper scrutiny of the depositions made by the PWs as well as the exhibits would indicate that the UPC Mizoram had come into existence only in the year 1995 after having some dispute with the UPC North East India. The exhibits further prove that the land passes were not issued to the UPC Mizoram. This being the un-controverted evidence on record, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the UPC Mizoram is an off-shoot/breakaway group of UPC North East India and that being the position, they cannot have any claim over the disputed properties with the UPC North East India. 16. Considering the deposition of the PWs, it can also be ascertained that the UPC Mizoram is not a registered body and therefore the plaint that was filed by the plaintiff/respondents could also not have been entertained in the manner that was filed inasmuch as this Court has not come across any material on record to show that the members of the UPC Mizoram had authorized the plaintiffs/respondents to file a suit on behalf of UPC Mizoram. 17. Having come to the finding that the UPC Mizoram has come into existence in the year 1995 and they are breakaway/off shoot of UPC North East India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court had erred by dividing the properties between the appellant and respondents in the manner that has been done by the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011. 18. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizaw Judicial District, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 is set aside and quashed and Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 is dismissed. 19. Appeal is allowed. No cost. 20. 18. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizaw Judicial District, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 is set aside and quashed and Title Suit No. 2(A) of 1996 is dismissed. 19. Appeal is allowed. No cost. 20. Accordingly, Cross Objection No. 1/2013 in R.F.A. No. 52 of 2012 also stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs.