Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 88 (TRI)

Thang Lunga Darlong v. L. v. Darlong

2022-02-21

ARINDAM LODH

body2022
JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who as plaintiffs have instituted the present suit against the defendant-respondents, here-in-after referred to as the defendants. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents. 2. The plaintiffs, the appellants herein had instituted the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit land and they are only authorized to perform their religious rites and functions in the Church and also for a decree directing the defendants not to enter into the suit land or create any disturbance to the peaceful possession and religious activities of the plaintiffs. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was contested by the defendants/ respondents by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the defendants belong to Christian religion and they have to worship in the Church and the plaintiffs have no right to object, and the Church is not in the possession of the plaintiffs as the Church is open for all. It is also pleaded that in the year 1968 the said Church was registered by the Registrar of Society, Assam, Shillong on 26.03.1969 vide No. 100 of 1968-1969 and as per registration certificate name of the church is "The United Pentecostal Church of North East India" (for short, "UPCNEI") and not "United Pentecostal Church" (for short, "UPC") and after registration of the Church, the plaintiffs are no longer the office bearers of the Church and they have no locus standi to file the suit. Thus, the defendants no. 1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs. 4. The "United Pentecostal Church of North East India" having its registered office at Jingkieng, Shillong-14, Meghalaya, was added as one of the defendants in the suit. After considering the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- "(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs' is barred by the principle of law of Section 11 of CPC? (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs' is also barred by the principle of law of Order VII R. 4 and Order 31 R. 1 of CPC? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have only been possessing the suit land and the Church standing there over? (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs' is also barred by the principle of law of Order VII R. 4 and Order 31 R. 1 of CPC? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have only been possessing the suit land and the Church standing there over? (iv) Whether the alleged story of disturbance of possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land and the Church, by the defendants is true? (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree as prayed for? (vi) Any other relief or reliefs?" 5. Evidences were recorded on the basis of the aforesaid issues. After completion of recording evidences, arguments were heard. Having considered the pleadings on evidence on record as well as submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit instituted by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailasahar, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this second appeal before this court preferred by the plaintiffs. 6. This court while admitting the appeal has formulated the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the findings and decision of the learned District Judge, Kailasahar is perverse? (ii) Whether the United Pentecostal Church of North East India, Shillong bearing registration certificate no. 100/1968, issued by the Registrar of Societies, Assam, Shillong, can have existence/jurisdiction beyond the limit of the competent authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1864, who issued the Registration Certificate?" 7. I have gone through the judgments passed by both the courts below. After considering the evidences, both the courts below held that the plaintiffs have failed to show that their Association is registered, whereas it is established by the defendants that United Pentecostal Church of North East India is a registered organization registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860 and the registration certificate no. is 100/1968 issued by the Registrar of Societies, Assam, Shillong, It is also held that the plaintiffs' society is unregistered and is entirely offshoot splinter and breakaway group of UPCNEI. It is further held that UPC is not a registered body, and thus, they cannot claim over the property of UPCNEI. is 100/1968 issued by the Registrar of Societies, Assam, Shillong, It is also held that the plaintiffs' society is unregistered and is entirely offshoot splinter and breakaway group of UPCNEI. It is further held that UPC is not a registered body, and thus, they cannot claim over the property of UPCNEI. Both the courts below rejected the claim of the plaintiffs that they have been possessing the suit land as well as running the affairs of the Church solely. It has come to light in evidence that defendant no. 5 is one of the operator of the bank account which was opened in the name of UPCNEI. It is also seen that some cases were filed within the jurisdiction of the courts of Mizoram and the matters went up to High Court when the UPC was declared as breakaway group of UPCNEI. It is also found that the defendants are the members belonging to Christian religion. The plaintiffs and the defendants belong to the same community. The defendants have categorically stated that they have no objection if prayer is made by the plaintiffs also in the same Church situated over the suit land. 8. Considering the overall findings of both the courts below, I do not find any of such findings which is not based on evidence. As a corollary, the first substantial question of law as to whether the findings of both the courts below are perverse, is answered. 9. Now, coming to the second substantial question of law as to whether UPCNEI being registered in Shillong can be operated in Tripura. 10. It is found that the Society, UPCNEI has been registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. If an organization is registered under Societies Registration Act, then, it will be operative throughout India. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law has been answered. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present second appeal, and thus, dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby affirmed and upheld. Decree may be drawn accordingly. Send down the LCRs forthwith.