JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The appellant has, by way of the present Regular First Appeal, prayed for setting aside the impugned ex-parte Judgment & Decree dated 22.04.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei in Title Suit No. 5/2015. 3. The only ground of challenge taken by the appellant against the impugned ex-parte Judgment & Decree dated 22.04.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 5/2015, is that no summon/notice was received by the appellant and as such, the appellant could not participate in the proceedings in Title Suit No. 5/2015. 4. The appellant’s case is that one Mr. Saizama and his wife, Mrs. P.C. Biaktluangi had 5 (five) children, namely, (i) Mr. P.C. Thanzuala (father of the respondent No. 1), (ii) Ms. P.C. Darhmingliani, (iii) Mr. P.C. Zoliana (appellant), (iv) Mr. P.C. Zahranga and (v) Mr. P.C. Lalchhawnsanga. 5. Mr. Saizama was the owner of land and building covered by Huan Pass No. 3/L of 1967. Mr. Saizama expired on 02.04.1968. Thereafter, Mr. Saizama’s wife, Mrs. P.C. Biaktluangi applied for a Heirship Certificate in favour of their youngest son, Mr. P.C. Lalchhawnsanga. Consequent to the same, Heirship Certificate was given to Mr. P.C. Lalchhawnsanga and Huan Pass No. 3/L of 1967 was converted into LSC No. 203/1979. LSC No. 203/1979 was made in the name of Mr. P.C. Lalchhawnsanga. 6. Mr. P.C. Lalchhawnsanga expired in the year 2000. Thereafter, Mr. P.C. Thanzuala (father of the respondent No. 1) mutated LSC No. 203/1979 in his name. LSC No. 203/1979 was thereafter superseded by LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012 and the same was made in the name of Mr. P.C. Thanzuala (father of the respondent No. 1). 7. On the death of Mr. P.C. Thanzuala, who expired on 03.08.2011, the appellant filed an application for grant of Heirship Certificate in respect of LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012. The Court of the Civil Judge-I thereafter issued Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012 to the appellant on 20.06.2012. Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012 states as follows:- “Whereas Shri. P.C Thanzuala S/o Shri. P.C Saizama (L), resident of Venglai, Lunglei, died on 03.08.2011, his brother P.C Zoliana, age about 53 years, resident of Venglai, Lunglei is hereby declared as legal heir of the deceased P.C Thanzuala in respect of LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012”. 8. Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012 states as follows:- “Whereas Shri. P.C Thanzuala S/o Shri. P.C Saizama (L), resident of Venglai, Lunglei, died on 03.08.2011, his brother P.C Zoliana, age about 53 years, resident of Venglai, Lunglei is hereby declared as legal heir of the deceased P.C Thanzuala in respect of LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012”. 8. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the issuance of an Heirship Certificate, in respect of his father’s land covered by LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012, to the appellant vide Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012, filed Review Petition No. 2/2014. Review Petition was allowed vide Order dated 09.06.2015 by the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, who directed that the Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012 should be re-heard. 9. The Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei issued Order dated 03.08.2015 in Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012, by holding that the prayer for issuance of an Heirship Certificate could not be adjudicated and as such, the appellant was advised to approach a Court of competent jurisdiction for determination of his rights and the issue raised in Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012. The application submitted by the appellant in Heirship Certificate No. 44/2012 was also returned to the appellant on 03.08.2015. 10. Subsequent to the above facts, the respondent No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 5/2015 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, praying for a declaration that the mutation of the LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012, belonging to his father, Mr. P.C. Thanzuala (L) in the name of the appellant was illegal, null and void. Further, the LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012 should be restored to its rightful owner and for a decree declaring that the respondent No. 1 was the legal and rightful owner of the land and building covered by LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012. 11. Title Suit No. 5/2015 was disposed of ex-parte by the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei vide Judgment & Decree dated 22.04.2016, declaring the respondent No. 1 as the rightful legal heir of his father, Mr. P.C. Thanzuala, in respect of the land covered by LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012. It also declared the mutation of the LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012 in favour of the appellant as being null and void. P.C. Thanzuala, in respect of the land covered by LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012. It also declared the mutation of the LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012 in favour of the appellant as being null and void. It further directed that the rental amount collected from the suit property w.e.f. May, 2014 should be paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 with interest @ 9% per annum from 22.04.2016. The State respondents were also directed to issue a fresh LSC in respect of LSC No. 208802/01/4 of 2012 in favour of the respondent No. 1. 12. Being aggrieved by the impugned ex-parte Judgment & Decree dated 22.04.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei in Title Suit No. 5/2015, the appellant has filed this present appeal. 13. The appellant’s counsel submits that no summon/notice was received by the appellant in respect of Title Suit No. 5/2015. He also submits that the signature purportedly made by the appellant in the Notice dated 27.11.2015, issued in Title Suit No. 5/2015, is not the signature of the appellant. In this regard, the learned counsel has submitted a Certificate issued by the Chief Manager of Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch, with regard to the specimen signature of the appellant in respect of his Account number with the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch. He submits that the signature of the appellant with the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch is completely different from the signature in the Notice dated 27.11.2015. He accordingly submits that the impugned ex-parte Judgment & Decree dated 22.04.2016 should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to the learned Trial Court, to enable the appellant to take part in the proceedings. 14. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand submits that the learned Trial Court was satisfied that notice was served upon the appellant and as such, the appellant should be deemed to be served notice in Title Suit No. 5/2015. He submits that though the signature of the appellant in the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch is different from the signature in the notice issued in Title Suit No. 5/2015, it is possible that some family member of the appellant had received the notice on behalf of the appellant. He submits that though the signature of the appellant in the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch is different from the signature in the notice issued in Title Suit No. 5/2015, it is possible that some family member of the appellant had received the notice on behalf of the appellant. He also submits that the heirship certificate issued to the appellant had been obtained by fraud, as was recorded by the learned Review Court, wherein it stated that the appellant had made a false claim for the property in question, on the ground that he was the sole surviving member of the family. The same was a blatantly false claim, as the respondent No. 1, who is the son of P.C. Thanzuala, was alive at the relevant point of time, alongwith the mother of the respondent No. 1. 15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 16. The only issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the notice issued by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 5/2015 was received by the appellant. On perusing the lower Court records, this Court finds that only one notice had been issued to the appellant on 27.11.2015. The alleged signature of the appellant in the said Notice dated 27.11.2015 is totally different from the signature of the appellant kept with the records of the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch. Though the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the Mizoram Rural Branch as P.C. Lalzoliana, the appellant’s name is recorded in this appeal as P.C. Zoliana. The appellant has also submitted a copy of the Voter’s ID card, wherein it shows that the appellant’s name is recorded as P.C. Lalzoliana also. However, the said P.C. Lalzoliana father’s name is recorded as Saizama. The photograph of P.C. Lalzoliana as kept in the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch record and the Voter ID Card are similar to his photograph, which has been shown today. 17. On considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the appellant is the same person, who has an account in the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch and which has been attested by the Chief Manager of Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch. 17. On considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the appellant is the same person, who has an account in the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch and which has been attested by the Chief Manager of Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch. As the signature of the appellant in the record of the Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch is different from the signature in the Notice dated 27.11.2015, even to the naked eye, this Court is of the view that the signature in the notice is not the signature of the appellant. It is also submitted by the counsels for the parties that the signatures of the appellant, in both the above documents, need not be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, as the difference in the signatures is evident even to the naked eye. The purported signature of the appellant reflected in the Notice dated 27.11.2015 does not show that the said signature belongs to any member of the family of the appellant and there is nothing to show that the notice had been received on behalf of the appellant by somebody else. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that notice issued to the appellant in Title Suit No. 5/2015 cannot be said to have been served upon the appellant and as such, the findings of the learned Trial Court appears to be erroneous on this count. 18. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the impugned ex-parte judgment and Order is not sustainable and the appellant should be allowed to take part in the proceedings of Title Suit No. 5/2015. Accordingly, the impugned exparte Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 5/2015 is hereby set aside. 19. The matter is remanded back to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, who shall fix the next date of proceeding in the case on 04.11.2022. The appellant and the respondents are directed to appear personally or through their counsels, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Lunglei on 04.11.2022. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 20. The Certificate issued by the Chief Manager, Mizoram Rural Bank, Lunglei Branch is made a part of the record and marked as annexure ‘X’. Send back the LCR.