JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This appeal preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 1.3.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Bishnupur in Misc Civil Appeal No.1 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge, while setting aside the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by Civil Judge, Sr.Divn, in Judl Misc Case No.2 of 2013 (arising out of O.S.No.1/2012/22/2012 did hold that the appellant/plaintiff had been functioning as Khullakpa of the Village, Raengdailuang. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts of the case need to be taken notice of, which are as follows: The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.16 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Manipur West for declaring him as Khullakpa of the Village Raengdailuang. In the said suit, the Trial Court on an application filed for temporary injunction passed an order on 29.1.2009 restraining the defendant/petitioner from interfering with the function of the plaintiff as Khullakpa of the said village, till disposal of the suit. On appeal being filed by the petitioner, the order granting temporary injunction was set aside by the learned District Judge, Manipur vide its order dated 10.7.2009. The respondent-defendant filed a revision petition bearing CRP No.20 of 2009 before this Court challenging the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the learned District Judge. While the said revision application was pending before this Court, the D.C., Churachandpur, vide its order dated 23.3.2010 declared the respondent-plaintiff as Khullakpa of the said village. Being aggrieved with that order the petitioner and his father (now deceased) challenged that order before this Court in WP(C) No.282 of 2010. This Court having heard both the matters, revision as well as the writ application passed an order on 4.11.2010 whereby the revision petition was dismissed whereas the writ application was allowed directing the State authorities to hold election for constitution of Village Authority of Village Raengdailuang (Sadu Khoiroi) within three months. The plaintiff-respondent challenged that order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP Nos.2277 and 2278 of 2011. While the said SLPs were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-petitioner withdrew the said suit bearing OS No.16/08/5/11. Thereafter the respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit bearing O.S.No.1 of 2012/22/2012 against the petitioners and others for the same relief which was there in the previous suit. While the said SLPs were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent-petitioner withdrew the said suit bearing OS No.16/08/5/11. Thereafter the respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit bearing O.S.No.1 of 2012/22/2012 against the petitioners and others for the same relief which was there in the previous suit. The petitioners-defendant by appearing filed written statement and also counter claim claiming himself to be the head of the village. Subsequently, the petitioner-defendant filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff respondent from laying claim of Khullakpaship of the said village. On such application, the Trial Court passed an order on 25.3.2014 directing both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land. Being dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner defendant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.3 of 2014 before the Court of District Judge, Bishnupur, who having heard the parties remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding it afresh. Meanwhile the SLPs which had been preferred by the plaintiff-respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme court were dismissed. The Trial Court on reconsideration of the matter passed injunction order in favour of the defendant-petitioner restraining the plaintiff-respondent from claiming any right of Khullakpaship of the village. Being aggrieved with that order dated 29.5.2015 the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the Court of District Judge, Bishnupur, who did pass the impugned order as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with that order this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent as has been made out in the title suit is that the village Sadu Koiroi (presently known as Raengdailuang) was established about two hundred years ago by the great great grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent, who belong to Montha Kamei clan of Kabui community whereas defendant who are from other clans had come from other place and had settled in the said village. Further case is that under the customary laws of Kabui or Jeliangrong of the said village, the eldest surviving male member of the said clan inherits the post of Khullakpaship. Accordingly, after the death of the chief namely, Pouchalung Kamei on 25.4.2008 the plaintiff being the eldest male member of the said clan inherited chiefship. Consequently, the village authority passed a resolution recognising the plaintiff as Chief of the said village. Accordingly, after the death of the chief namely, Pouchalung Kamei on 25.4.2008 the plaintiff being the eldest male member of the said clan inherited chiefship. Consequently, the village authority passed a resolution recognising the plaintiff as Chief of the said village. In course of time an application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer, Churachandpur for changing name of the chief from late Pouchalung Kamei to the plaintiff. On such applications objections were invited but none of the villagers raised any objection. As a result of which the SDO, vide its order dated 17.6.2008 recorded the name of plaintiff as Chief of the said village. Subsequently, the D.C., Churachandpur also confirmed the said order of the SDO regarding transfer of name of chief from Pouchalung to the plaintiff. Since then, plaintiff has been functioning as Khullakpa. 4. Defendants have filed written statement as well as counter claim making out a case that originally the persons of Gangmei clan inhabited the village, the other clans namely Montha Kamei etc came in course of time and settled at the said village. The village was being administered by Khunbu who happen to be the owner of the land whereas Khullakpa appointed by the villagers is the caretaker of the village and thereby Khunbu always rank higher to Khullakpa and that the post of Khunbu is heritable but the post of Khullakpa is not heritable. Further case is that the last Khunbu namely, Kamjeipou Gangmei died in the year 2010 and after his death his eldest son Mukudun Gangmei (defendant No.2) inherited the Khunbuship of the said village and presently, Mukudun Gangmei is the Khunbu of the village. Likewise, the last Khunbu Pouchalung Kamei died on 25.4.2008 and after his death Pouthailung Kamei (defendant No.3) of Khuigai Kamei clan was selected and was appointed as Khullakpa of the said village and presently he (defendant No.3) has been functioning as Khullakpa of the said village. Plaintiff contested the counter claim by taking a stand that it is never correct that village is being administered by Khunbu, who happens to be the owner of the village and that Khunbu is administering the village with the help of Khullakpa. It was also denied that Khullakpa is selected or appointed by the villagers and that post of Khunbu is heritable, rather it is the post of Khullakpa which is heritable. 5. It was also denied that Khullakpa is selected or appointed by the villagers and that post of Khunbu is heritable, rather it is the post of Khullakpa which is heritable. 5. While the case was fixed for hearing for adducing evidences by the plaintiff, the defendants-petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was granted whereby the plaintiff was restrained from laying claim over the post of Khullakpa, till disposal of the main suit. That order was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court in appeal set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on being found that the defendant has not been able to make out prima facie case in his favour nor balance of convenience appears to be in favour of the plaintiff. However, it was observed that the plaintiff has been functioning as Khullakpa of the said village. 6. Mr. Sachindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submits that the plaintiff claimed himself to be the Khullakpa of the village on the basis of order passed by the SDO, confirmed by the D.C., Churachandpur but those orders were set aside by this Court and while setting aside the said order this Court had directed the State authority to hold election for constitution of Village Authority within three months. In spite of that the Appellate Court recorded finding that plaintiff-respondent has been functioning as Khullakpa of the village which is quite erroneous and thereby that finding is fit to be set aside. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that in spite of the fact that the defendant had failed to establish prima facie his case of he being a Khunbu (a village head), still the Court passed order of injunction in favour of the defendant and hence, the Appellate Court finding the said order being illegal set aside it and did observe, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, that the plaintiff-respondent has been functioning as Khullakpa and, therefore, that finding never warrants to be reversed. 7. 7. Having heard counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the plaintiff is laying claim over the post of Khullakpa on the basis of inheritance as per the customary right but that is being denied by the defendant by taking stand that Khullakpa never happens to be the head of the village, rather head of the village happens to be Khunbu, which post is heritable but not the Khullakpa, who is being selected/appointed by the villagers and that Khullakpa being subordinate to Khunbu, works under the Khunbu. Under the circumstances there appears to be vertical split in between the stand taken by the parties and this can be determined only on evidence being led. In the peculiar situation as stated above, it is difficult on the part of the Court to arrive at to a conclusion as to in whose favour prima facie case is there and, therefore, Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Trial Court granting injunction in favour of the defendant-petitioner by holding that without recoding that prima facie is there in favour of the petitioner has passed the order of injunction in favour of petitioner-defendant. However, at the same time the Court did observe that the plaintiff-respondent has been functioning as Khullakpa though the orders upon which plaintiff-respondent was claiming to be the Khullakpa of the village had been set aside by this Court, which has even been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, thereby the finding recorded by the Appellate Court to the effect that plaintiff-respondent has been functioning as Khullakpa of the said village is quite erroneous and, therefore, that part of finding recorded by the Appellate Court is hereby set aside. Thus this application stands disposed of.