Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 57 (MAN)

Sonar Chand Singh Ngangom v. Ngangom Mir

2021-10-26

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT [1] This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.157 of 2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2015. The first respondent herein is the applicant in J.M.C.No.157 of 2018. [2] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition, despite several opportunities being afforded to him, he has not been represented either in person or through his counsel. [3] In the affidavit-in-opposition, the first respondent stated that the homestead land under Patta No.89/7/417, Imphal West Tahsil now Patta No.89/417(Old)678(New) was recorded in the name of (i) Ngangom Jugindra Singh of Lalambung and (ii) Lamabam Kala Singh of Lamabam Leikai in the year 1959 in C.S.Dag No.152 of Village No.89-Lalambung measuring .62 acre as co-pattadars and they possess the same as owner pattadar thereof ever since without any interruption from any quarter whatsoever. After the death of the said two co-pattadars the names of their legal heirs were entered in the record of rights of the said land as co-pattadars and the northern half of the said homestead land has been in possession of (i) Ngangom Mohendra Singh; (ii) Ngangom Birijit Singh; (iii) Ngangom Jitendra Singh and (iv) Motimala Ngangom jointly. The southern half has been in possession of the legal heirs of the deceased Lamabam Kala Singh. It is stated that the said homestead land is not yet been partitioned amongst the legal heirs of deceased Lamabam Kala Singh and Ngangom Jugindra Singh and as such the preparation of separate Jamabandi in the names of the co-pattadars is illegal and deserves to be cancelled. The first respondent along with his family members possess the northeastern portion of the said homestead land measuring an area of 0.0251 hectare of land as owner and have constructed dwelling houses therein since the life time of his father without any interruption from any quarter and the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. It is stated that the prayer for impleading a person cannot be resisted on the ground that no relief has been sought against him and on the other hand, the suit land mentioned in the suit is the area where the first respondent along with his family members are residing and as such very much connected with him. It is stated that the prayer for impleading a person cannot be resisted on the ground that no relief has been sought against him and on the other hand, the suit land mentioned in the suit is the area where the first respondent along with his family members are residing and as such very much connected with him. [4] Assailing the impugned order dated 19.4.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Civil Judge failed to consider and examine the cardinal principles of law in passing the impugned order by applying the judicial mind to the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by them in the suit. He would submit that the learned Civil Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the suit land has no connection with the first respondent and that the petitioner herein has a right and prerogative to choose and implead in his suit as defendant the person against whom he seeks relief. [5] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since there is no dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of the suit land owned and recorded in the name of the petitioner, the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the learned Civil Judge, without considering the said aspect of the matter, allowed the application filed by the first respondent, thereby impleaded him as third defendant in the suit. Since such order of the learned Civil Judge is not in consonance with the applicable provisions of law, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of learned Civil Judge impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. [6] While allowing the application of the first respondent for impleadment in the suit, the learned Civil Judge observed as under: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient ground for impleading the applicant as a necessary party to the suit as his presence will enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settled the question involved in the suit. It is also ascertained that the present suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be decreed in the absence of the applicant being a necessary party. Hence, the application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. It is also ascertained that the present suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be decreed in the absence of the applicant being a necessary party. Hence, the application filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. Accordingly, his name is added in the suit as defendant No.3 after the name of the recorded defendant Nos.1 and 2 and amend the plaint in such manner as necessary as per C.P.C. J.M. stands disposed off.” [7] Admittedly, the petitioner herein has filed the Original Suit No.55 of 2015 against one Khongbantabam Tomba Singh and his wife Samandram Nonibala Devi to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and eviction of the defendants from the suit premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. The petitioner also claimed damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per month since March, 2014 for their unauthorized occupation of the suit premises till the recovery of the same and also prayed to cancel the gift deed dated 28.9.2005 and plaint schedule, the Property has been described as under: SCHEDULE The homestead land under Patta No 417 (old), 678/2276 (new), covered by Dag No.2321/2680, measuring an area Of 0.0250 hectare, situated at village No.89 – Khwail Lalambung, Imphal West Tahasil is bounded: On the north : By the road of the Kangjabi Leira On the south : By the Land of Lamabam Netrajit Singh On the east : By the road of Nagamapal Road On the west : By the land of Ngangom Mihir Singh [8] In his affidavit-in-opposition, the first respondent stated that he is one of the recorded co-pattadar and possessor of the homestead land under C.S.Dag No.2321 measuring 0.62 acre (0.2509 hectare) and he claims that he along with his family members possesses the northeastern portion of the said homestead land measuring an area of 0.0251 hectare of the land. The petitioner as plaintiff in the suit claimed right over C.S.Dag No.2321/2780 measuring an area of 0.0250 hectare with specific boundaries. The petitioner as plaintiff in the suit claimed right over C.S.Dag No.2321/2780 measuring an area of 0.0250 hectare with specific boundaries. On the other hand, the first respondent has given the specific boundary for their land as under: On the North : By the Road of Kangjabi Leirak On the South : By the homestead land of the heirs of late Lamabam Kala Singh On the East : By the Nagamapal Road On the West : By the remaining portion of the homestead land of Late Ngangom Jugindra [9] Thus, it is clear that the two parties have claimed their rights with separate boundaries. Since the relief claimed against the defendants in the suit is for the property measuring 0.0250 hectare with specific boundaries, the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the learned Civil Judge erred in passing the impugned order thereby impleading the first respondent as the third defendant, who is not at all related to the suit property. Since no relief is sought against the first respondent and there is no dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of the suit land owned and recorded in the name of the petitioner, the learned Civil Judge ought not to have impleaded the first respondent as the third defendant in the suit. [10] As rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner as plaintiff has a right and prerogative to choose and implead in his suit as defendant the person against whom he seeks relief and the petitioner is not obliged to implead a person as defendant in the suit, against whom no relief is sought. Admittedly, as stated supra, the petitioner as plaintiff in the suit has not claimed any relief against the first respondent or their family members. The petitioner claimed relief only against the defendants, who are stated to be unauthorized occupants and only the defendants in the suit have right to defend the suit and not the first respondent herein. [11] In the grounds, the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner has no grievance against the homestead land owned and possessed by the first respondent and in other words, there is no issue for adjudication between the petitioner and the first respondent. [11] In the grounds, the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner has no grievance against the homestead land owned and possessed by the first respondent and in other words, there is no issue for adjudication between the petitioner and the first respondent. When that being the plea of the petitioner herein, the first respondent is not a necessary or proper party to the suit for adjudication of the claim made in the suit. [12] The learned Civil Judge, while allowing the application of the first respondent, simply stated that the first respondent who has interest to join in the suit as defendant has interest in the subject matter of the suit. The said finding of the learned Civil Judge is not founded with material documents and In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the plaint, the first respondent is not an interested person and the ground for which he has to be Impleaded as defendant in the suit has no merit. [13] Admittedly, Order I, Rule 3 CPC deals with joinder of defendants in a suit. In order to join as a defendant in the suit, he should have a legal interest in the reliefs claimed in the suit. Similarly, Order 1, Rule 10 CPC gives power to the Court that at any stage of the suit a person may be added as a party to a suit. As stated supra, the first respondent has no legal interest in the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the suit and the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the first respondent. That apart, the interest not shown in proceeding with the present Civil Revision Petition, despite several opportunities being afforded to the first respondent, would also indicate that the first respondent has no legal right over the land in question in the suit. [14] The findings arrived at by the learned Civil Judge in impleading the first respondent as defendant No.3 in the suit is not based on the material evidence. Therefore, the order dated 19.4.2018 of the learned Civil Judge impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set aside. [15] Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West dated 19.4.2018 made in J.M.C.No. 157 of 2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2015 is set aside. [16] No costs.