JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Additional Advocate General appears for the appellants. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii appears for respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 2. This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the State of Mizoram against the Judgment & Decree dated 25.07.2013, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei in Civil Suit No. 33/2010 and the Order dated 15.07.2014, passed in Execution Petition No. 6/2014. The impugned Judgment & Decree dated 25.07.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 33/2010, has decreed that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the rightful owner of the suit lands and that the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District and Commissioner/Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, General Administration Department, Mizoram are liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for their illegal occupation of the suit lands, for the period from 1986. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Civil Suit No. 33/2010 had been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs for payment of rent @ Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month for the period from 1966 to 1986 onwards for occupation of their land by the Assam Rifles from 1966 to 1986 and by the State Government from 1986 onwards. The other prayer made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their suit was for payment of compensation for damage crops and buildings. They further prayed for a decree to be issued to the appellants to vacate the suit land. The facts, as set out by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their plaint was that the plaintiffs and their parents were given a plot of land at Thingsai by the Chief of Thingsai. Accordingly, they had settled there after the death of their parents till the year, 1966. The area of the land of the respondent No. 1 was 30 bighas, respondent no. 2 was 10 bighas and respondent No. 3 was 15 bighas. When disturbance arose in Mizoram in the year 1966, one Company of the 19th Assam Rifles came to Thingsai Village and forcibly occupied the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The said land was used as a dropping area whereby supplies used to be dropped from the area for the Assam Rifles. When disturbance arose in Mizoram in the year 1966, one Company of the 19th Assam Rifles came to Thingsai Village and forcibly occupied the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The said land was used as a dropping area whereby supplies used to be dropped from the area for the Assam Rifles. The Assam Rifles left the village in the year, 1986. The Government of Mizoram constructed some buildings on the suit land in the year 1974, which included the Administrative Officer''s Office, quarters and also a supply go-down, as the said land is still being occupied by the State Government without payment of rent. The State Government was also liable to pay rent to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 w.e.f., 1986. 4. Written Statement was submitted by the Union of India and the State of Mizoram, wherein they stated that the suit was barred by limitation and that there was no cause of action in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. They also stated that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 could not produce any Land Record Certificate to prove their title over the suit land. Also, no notice under Section 18 CPC was served upon the Government and that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed 5 (five) issues on 21.09.2011, which are as follows:- wxyz (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style zyxw wxyz (2) Whether the 19 th Assam Rifles has any pass or Land Lease issued by competent authority for settlement at the side of Thingsai zyxw wxyz (3) Whether the defend and forcefully occupied and settled inside the land of the plaintiff zyxw wxyz (4) Whether the joint inspection or investigation of the suit land had been done by the defendant in order to assertain the occupation of the land of the plaintiff by 19 th Assam Rifle and other Battalion. zyxw wxyz (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? If so, to what extend and who is liable" zyxw 6. The Trial Court thereafter examined 4 plaintiff witnesses, one defendant witness for the State Government and another defendant witness for the Union of India. zyxw wxyz (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? If so, to what extend and who is liable" zyxw 6. The Trial Court thereafter examined 4 plaintiff witnesses, one defendant witness for the State Government and another defendant witness for the Union of India. The Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the suit was maintainable with regard to Issue No. 2, the Trial Court held that the 19th Assam Rifles could not produce any land pass for occupying the suit land and as the Union of India did not specifically and categorically deny the allegation of the plaintiffs that their lands were occupied by the Assam Rifles, the Trial Court was constrained to hold that the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were occupied by the 19th Assam Rifles. 7. In respect of Issue No. 3, the Trial Court held that the suit land had been forcibly occupied by the Assam Rifles, as the Union of India did not make any specific denial to the averments of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, accusing them of occupying their suit lands. The learned Trial Court also did not take into consideration the documents produced by the Union of India after evidence had been closed, which purportedly stated that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not have lands at Thingsai Village. 8. With regard to Issue No. 4, which is as to whether a joint verification had been done over the suit land to ascertain whether the 19th Assam Rifles had occupied their land, the learned Trial Court held that no joint verification was done over the suit lands. With regard to Issue No. 5 i.e., whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief claim, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had clarified the reason for not being able to produce the required land passes as they had been lost by the Government after it had been submitted to the Government. Also, as there was no rebuttal against exhibit P-1, 4, 6 & 9, the Trial Court came to a finding that as the suit lands were occupied by the Government of Mizoram for quarters, go-down and office of the Administrative Officer etc., the rent payable had to be paid by the State Government. The learned Trial Court thereafter decreed that the respondent Nos. The learned Trial Court thereafter decreed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were the rightful owners of the suit lands and that the State Government was liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the illegal occupation of the suit land for the period of occupation w.e.f., 1986. The appellant No. 4 was directed to make assessment of the rental compensation payable to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 9. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellants/ State Government has approached this Court by way of this Regular First Appeal. 10. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Additional Advocate General submits at the outset that the impugned judgment and order has to be set aside, on the ground that the Civil Suit was barred by limitation. He further submits that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence given by the plaintiff witness No. 1. He also submits that while the plaintiffs had taken the stand that they were allotted the lands by the Chief of Thingsai, the same was contradicted by them in their cross examination, when they stated that they had submitted the Village Council Pass (VC pass) to the Government. He also submits that the Government had constructed the quarters and office of the Administrative Officer along with a go-down in 1974 when the land was a vacant land. He also submits that the plaintiffs did not have any documents to show their ownership over the land and that the stand taken by them that they had submitted the land documents to the Government was only an attempt to legitimize their claim over their land. wxyz The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in the evidence of Captain Rajesh Joshi of the Assam Rifles, the certificate issued by the Village Council President and other prominent leaders of Thingsai village had categorically stated that the land occupied by the 19th Assam Rifles was vacant land. He however submits that the learned Trial Court did not allow the said document to be exhibited, as it had been submitted after the issues had been framed. He submits that the above document clearly shows that the claims of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were false. zyxw 11. The learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the affidavit in the plaint had been signed only by the plaintiff No. 1. He submits that the above document clearly shows that the claims of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were false. zyxw 11. The learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the affidavit in the plaint had been signed only by the plaintiff No. 1. Also the affidavit in the plaint does not state that the plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 had authorized the plaintiff No. 1 to file the suit or signed the affidavit on their behalf. He accordingly submits that the same goes to show that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and that it is in violation of Order 6 Rule 14 CPC. 12. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ plaintiffs submits that the Civil suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiffs have prayed for payment of rent for occupation of their lands, the cause of action for which arises every month. She also submits that as a land owner can make a claim for rent from a period of three years immediately preceding the Civil Suit, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal, (2000) 3 SCC 681 , the suit was not barred by limitation. She also submits that as the appellants were in the process of complying with the impugned Judgment and decree, they cannot file an appeal against the impugned Judgment and decree. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also submits that the evidence of the witness for the Union of India, which is to the effect that the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were false, as per the Certificate issued by the Village Council President of Thingsai Village and other prominent village leaders, was correctly not relied upon the learned Trial Court, as the said Certificate had been submitted to the Court only after the issues had been framed. She also submits that the President of the Thingsai Village Council had issued certificates showing that the 19th Assam Rifles had occupied the lands of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. She also submits that as there are documents issued by the 19th Assam Rifles authority showing that the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had been occupied by the Assam Rifles, there was no infirmity with the impugned Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. 1 to 3. She also submits that as there are documents issued by the 19th Assam Rifles authority showing that the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had been occupied by the Assam Rifles, there was no infirmity with the impugned Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. 13. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, the learned CGC submits that as there was no claim made against the Union of India by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Suit No. 33/2010, she has got nothing to say, as no decree has been issued against the Union of India. 14. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusing the LCR, this Court finds that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs in paragraph No. 20 of the plaint have stated that the cause of action arose in the year, 1966 when the 19th Assam Rifles occupied the suit lands. In paragraph No. 6 of the plaint, it has been stated that the Assam Rifles left the suit land in 1974 and the Government of Mizoram continued to occupy the land for Administrative Officer''s Office and quarters and also for construction of supply go-down. It also states that the staff quarter''s office and go-down were still being operated as on the date the suit was filed. In paragraph No. 4 of the suit, the plaintiff has stated that the Assam Rifles left the village in the year 1986. wxyz The above goes to show that there are contradictions in the plaint. In the case of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal (Supra), the Apex Court has held that for recovery of arrears of rent, Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribed the period of 3 years from the date the arrears become due. Thus, by applying the Judgment of the Apex Court, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 can make a claim for payment of rent, from a period of three years prior to the filing of the Civil Suit. However, though the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ plaintiff can make a claim for payment of arrears rent, eviction of the appellants from the land and for giving them possession of their alleged lands, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would have to first establish their rights, titles and interests over the said lands. zyxw 15. However, though the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ plaintiff can make a claim for payment of arrears rent, eviction of the appellants from the land and for giving them possession of their alleged lands, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would have to first establish their rights, titles and interests over the said lands. zyxw 15. The evidence of all the 4 plaintiff witnesses in paragraph No. 2 of their examinations-in-chief is to the effect that land was allotted to them by the Chief of Thingsai and that the 19th Assam Rifles had occupied the suit lands in the year 1966 and they had left the village in 1986. However, the plaintiffs/ respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in paragraph No. 6 of their examination-in-chief affidavits have stated as follows:- wxyz "That in the year 1974, i.e. after the Assam Rifles left the lands, the Government of Mizoram continue to occupy the land for Administrative Officer''s Office and Quarters and also for construction of Supply Godown. The Staff Quarter, Office and Go down were still operated till date." zyxw wxyz Thus, the contradiction is apparent with regard to when the Assam Rifles had vacated the suit lands. From the above, it is clear that the Assam Rifles had left the suit land in 1974 and that the Government of Mizoram had occupied the land by constructing buildings therein. Besides the above, PW-1 (respondent No. 1) in her cross examination has stated that she had submitted her claim petition to the Revenue Department/Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl alongwith the VC Pass but her pass was lost by the Officials which could not be recovered. The evidence given by PW-1 (respondent No. 1) in her examination-in-chief that she was allotted the land by the Chief of Thingsai is not in consonance with her evidence given in her cross examination, wherein she has said that she had submitted her VC Pass to the Revenue Department, as the VC Pass can only be issued by a Village Council. PW-1 could have always produced Village Council member/s of Thingsai Village to prove that a VC Pass had been issued over the suit land. However, the same has not been done. Neither has PW-1 (respondent No. 1) been able to specify the VC Pass number or the year of issue before the Trial Court or before this Court. PW-1 could have always produced Village Council member/s of Thingsai Village to prove that a VC Pass had been issued over the suit land. However, the same has not been done. Neither has PW-1 (respondent No. 1) been able to specify the VC Pass number or the year of issue before the Trial Court or before this Court. In any event, all the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses have stated that the plaintiffs do not have any land documents to prove their ownership of the suit land. Also, there is nothing to show which zyxw wxyz Chief of Thingsai had given the suit lands to the plaintiffs and on what dates and the particular locations of lands. zyxw 16. The evidence of the appellants? witness C. Lalhmingliana is to the effect that the Government of Mizoram constructed the Office of the Administrative Officers, quarters and Government go-down in the year, 1974 when the suit land was vacant and nobody claimed the land. No complaint or objection was received by the Government from any quarter. There is also no record to show that during construction, there were crops on the land. 17. The issue of whether the Limitation Act is applicable in the State of Mizoram has been laid to rest by the Apex Court in J. Thansiama Vs. State of Mizoram, (2015) 5 GauLT 7 , wherein it has stated that the Limitation Act is applicable to the State of Mizoram. On considering the fact that the plaintiffs have not been able to produce any documents to show that they have any right, title, interest or ownership over the suit lands and in view of the Limitation Act, 1963 being applicable in the State of Mizoram, this Court finds that the Civil Suit No. 33/2010 was barred by limitation, as the same was filed only on 23.11.2010. Even if the cause of action is taken to have arisen in the year 1986, when the Assam Rifles had allegedly left the land, the Civil Suit would still be barred by limitation. 18. The evidence of Captain Rajesh Jhosi, of the Assam Rifles is to the effect that a certificate had been issued by the Village Council President of Thingsai Village and other prominent citizens of the village, which stated that the Assam Rifles camp in Thingsai village was on vacant land and it did not belong to anybody. 18. The evidence of Captain Rajesh Jhosi, of the Assam Rifles is to the effect that a certificate had been issued by the Village Council President of Thingsai Village and other prominent citizens of the village, which stated that the Assam Rifles camp in Thingsai village was on vacant land and it did not belong to anybody. It is not understand as to why this document was not exhibited. Be that as it may, as the certificate was not exhibited, the same is not admissible as evidence. The documents relied upon by the Trial Court in coming to a finding that the Assam Rifles had occupied the land of the respondent Nos. 1 - 3 is based upon documents allegedly issued by the President of the Village Council of Thingsai, which says that the 19th Assam Rifles occupied the land of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. However, the said documents, though exhibited cannot be admissible as evidence, as the maker of the said documents was not examined by the learned Trial Court. The said documents exhibited as Exhibit P-4 and P-9 are dated nil and accordingly the contents of the documents are not proved. 19. The Lushai Hills District (House Sites) Act, 1953 (hereinafter refer to as the "1953 Act") provides for allotment, occupation or use of land for residential and any other non-agricultural purposes. Section 4 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956 states as follows:- wxyz "No person shall acquire by length of possession or otherwise any right over land disposed of, allotted or occupied before the commencement of this Act unless such land had been recorded and registered either in the Deputy Commissioner''s Office or the District council''s Office." zyxw wxyz The Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 (hereinafter refer to as the "1963 Act") provides for the control over the agricultural land in the Mizo District. It also provides for the manner of allotment of lands. zyxw wxyz Section 6 of the 1963 Act states as follows: zyxw wxyz "All lands already occupied and pass/ permit granted by any authority before the commencement of this Act shall have to be registered and fresh Patta obtained from the Administrator within such time and in such manner and on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed. zyxw wxyz Section 6 of the 1963 Act states as follows: zyxw wxyz "All lands already occupied and pass/ permit granted by any authority before the commencement of this Act shall have to be registered and fresh Patta obtained from the Administrator within such time and in such manner and on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed. zyxw wxyz Failure to carry out this section and the rules thereunder, may entail cancellation of the pass permit by the Administrator; provided, due notice is served to the person/ persons concerned." zyxw wxyz A perusal of the above two provisions of law clearly go to show that even if lands had been allegedly allotted/ granted by any authority to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, before the commencement of the above Acts, fresh Patta was to be obtained from the Administrator and the same was to be registered with the authorities, such as the Deputy Commissioner or the District Council''s office. In the present case, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not have any documents to prove that they had been granted or allotted any land by any authority even till today. Thus, the learned Trial Court erred in coming to a finding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were the owners of land on the basis of unproven verbal submissions made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. zyxw 20. On perusing the plaint submitted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil suit No. 33 of 2010, it is seen that plaint is without any verification. The affidavit appended to the plaint has been signed only by the respondent No.1 and not by the other respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The affidavit also does not state that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as plaintiffs, had authorized the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 to sign the affidavit on their behalf. 21. With regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the appellants cannot be allowed to file an appeal against the Judgment and decree as they were in the process of complying with the impugned Judgment and decree, this Court does not find any reason to agree with the said submission, as the same does not preclude/bar the appellants from filing an appeal. With regard to the submission made by the counsel for the respondent Nos. With regard to the submission made by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the documents issued by the 19th Assam Rifles proved that the lands of the plaintiffs have been occupied by the19th Assam Rifles, this Court finds no force in the said submission, particularly when the documents which the counsel is relying upon are unproven documents. 22. The finding of the learned Trial Court that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the suit land is not proven by the evidence adduced. The learned Trial Court could not have made a finding that the suit land belonged to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 only due to the weakness of the Union of India, in not being able to produce land documents pertaining to their occupation of the suit land. The above in any event, does not preclude the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the burden of proving their rights, titles and interest over the suit land. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had to prove that they were owners of the land occupied by the Assam Rifles and the appellants, which they have woefully not done. As the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not been able to prove their ownership of the land being occupied by the appellants, no consequential relief/decree could have been granted to them. 23. In view of the above reasons, the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 25.07.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 33/2010 is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. wxyz Send back the LCR. zyxw