JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act against the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-IV, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 6/2015. 3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the learned trial court is that plaintiff/respondent and her late husband Ran Bahadur Gharty were married according to the Customary Law of Mizo rites and customs, by paying Bride Price and their marriage as solemnized according to the Mizo Christian Practices at Church on 01/06/1980. The acknowledgement of their marriage is issued by the Secretary, Village Council Court, Saitual, Aizawl District. The plaintiff/respondent is stated to be a self-employed woman and she bought a plot of land from her near relative with a hut standing therein at Saitual Chhim Veng, Aizawl District in the year 1985 wherein she constructed an RCC building with her hard earned money. A Land Settlement Certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the Department of Land Revenue & Settlement, Government of Mizoram which is covered under LSC No. CAD-658 of 2013. No children were born between the plaintiff/respondent and her husband. Thereafter the defendant/appellant who is the son of the plaintiff/respondent’s husband from his first marriage was raised by the plaintiff/respondent and her late husband when the defendant was a boy till his marriage due to which he moved out from their house to start a new family of his own. The plaintiff/respondent and her late husband continue to live in the same house after the defendant/appellant left. The plaintiff/respondent’s husband died on 18.4.2011. After the death of the plaintiff/respondent husband, the defendant/appellant along with his wife and children moved back to the plaintiff/respondent house claiming that he is the rightful owner of the plaintiff’s/respondent house. The plaintiff/respondent had made many attempts to evict the defendant/appellant and his family from her house but in vain as the defendant/appellant repeatedly claimed that the house belongs to his deceased father and that he is the sole heir to the property and thus threatening the plaintiff to move out or otherwise. The plaintiff/respondent had made many attempts to evict the defendant/appellant and his family from her house but in vain as the defendant/appellant repeatedly claimed that the house belongs to his deceased father and that he is the sole heir to the property and thus threatening the plaintiff to move out or otherwise. The plaintiff/respondent case is that she was the person who purchased the land covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 and the LSC is also issued in her favour. As such, the plaintiff/respondent is the legal and rightful owner of the said land. The said LSC was never issued in the name of the plaintiff’s late husband and the defendant had no right to claim the said land. 4. The defendant/appellant case was that there was no marriage between the plaintiff/respondent and the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty. The deceased was holding the post of S.I during his life time and the disputed plot of land was bought by him for Rs.6,000/-, the deceased had also bought another plot of land for Rs.37000/-. While the defendant/respondent was taking steps to mutate the disputed plot of land in the name of his father Ran Bahadur Gharty, his father died on 08.04.2011 and the respondent/plaintiff had secretly got the LSC mutated in her name. The defendant/appellant moved back to his father’s house in 2010 and looked after his father till his death, paying for his hospital bills. That since the defendant/appellant was the only son of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty, the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 be inherited by him being the sole legal heir. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Lower court then framed the following issues” i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? iii) Whether the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD No. 658 of 2013 iv) Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD No. 658 of 2013. v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? if so, to what extent? 6. During trial as many as 4 (four) plaintiff witnesses adduced the evidence and 6 (six) defendant witnesses were examined. 7. v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? if so, to what extent? 6. During trial as many as 4 (four) plaintiff witnesses adduced the evidence and 6 (six) defendant witnesses were examined. 7. The learned Lower Court after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2021 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and decreed that the appellant and his family should be permanently removed from the land and building covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. The learned lower court also decree that the appellant and his family will restrain from entering any portion of land and building covered by the said LSC without the permission of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, appellant has approached this Court. 8. Mr. R. Lalnunpuia the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 20.10. 2021 is liable to be set aside for the following reasons: He submits that the Eviction Suit itself is barred by limitation since the respondent had bought the suit land in 1985, while she had filed for the eviction of the appellant only in the year, 2015. The learned counsel further submits that it is not possible for the respondent to have purchased the suit land since she was jobless. The evidence of PW-3 in his cross examination has clearly stated that the respondent/plaintiff was not having any job. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there was no legal marriage between the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty and the respondent since no marriage certificate was produced and therefore, she has wrongfully taken the pension of his deceased father. The learned counsel submits that the eviction suit should have been dismissed outright by the learned Lower Court for giving this wrong information. The respondent had also alleged that she bought the disputed land from a near relative but there is no evidence to support her claim. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant had not left the main house (In-dang) but had returned to the main house when his father Ran Bahadur Gharty was sick in 2010 and looked after his father till his death. The learned Lower Court had erred in deciding that the appellant had left the house (Indang) and that he could not claim any right over the disputed land. 9. Mr. The learned Lower Court had erred in deciding that the appellant had left the house (Indang) and that he could not claim any right over the disputed land. 9. Mr. R. Lalnunpuia, learned counsel thus submits that for the above reasons, the Judgment & Order dated 20.10.2021 is liable to be set aside and the appellant being the only son of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty should be the rightful owner of the house covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 and be declared the legal heir of his deceased father Ran Bahadur Gharty by way of mandatory and permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land and building covered under LSC No. CAD 658 of 2013. 10. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that it would not be correct to say that the respondent was not having any job. He submits that though she was not having a salaried job, she was having a small shop and could have her own income. He submits that in the examination-in-chief of the respondent/plaintiff, she has clearly mentioned that she had enough money to purchase the instant land covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. The fact that the respondent was having enough money to purchase the said land, house and building within LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 and that the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 was issued in the name of the respondent was not challenged during the trial of the case. The evidence of the witnesses shows that the respondent use to run a small variety store. He further mentions that the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty and the respondent were married on 01.06.1980 and had built the house within the said LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 from their savings during their marriage. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that since the respondent was receiving the pension of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty, it is cleared that she is the wife of the deceased. He further submits that the appellant had moved out from the house on his marriage and had returned shortly before the death of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty in 2010 under the pretext of looking after his father Ran Bahadur Gharty, who died on 18.04.2011. He further submits that the appellant had moved out from the house on his marriage and had returned shortly before the death of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty in 2010 under the pretext of looking after his father Ran Bahadur Gharty, who died on 18.04.2011. That, the cause of action rose only when he moved into their house in the year and started harassing her and therefore, the issue of this eviction suit being barred by limitation does not arise at all. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that from the evidence of the witnesses, it can be seen that the respondent was harassed when the appellant moved back into the house and because of the constant harassment, the respondent was compelled to file the eviction suit. He submits that the respondent was not having any child of her own and that the appellant is the only son. That the respondent is now 75 years of age and that there would no other person entitled to the said LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 on the demise of the respondent. The learned counsel further submits that from the evidence of the parties, the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty had also purchased another plots of land which were given to the appellant/defendant and the dispute is over one plot of land which has been kept in the name of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Lower Court dated 20.10.2021 since the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty and she had been residing in the house within the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 with the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty till his death furthermore, the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 was mutated the name of the respondent. 13. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the rival parties and I also have perused the documents on record. 13. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the rival parties and I also have perused the documents on record. From the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, the issues to be decided in this appeal are: 1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation 2) Whether the respondent/plaintiff have come to this court with clean hands by stating that she had bought the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 when she is actually jobless 3) Whether the respondent/plaintiff can be declared the wife of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty when no married certificate has been produced before the trial court. 4) Whether the trial court erred in directing the defendant and his family to permanently remove themselves from the land and building covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. 14. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is seen that the examination-in-chief of the respondent as plaintiff witness No.1 stated that she had bought the plot of land from her near relative with a hut standing therein at Saitual Chhimveng, Aizawl District in the year, 1985, covered under the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. The LSC certificate was issued in her favour by the department of Land Revenue & Settlement, Govt. of Mizoram after her husband’s death since she had bought the LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. Her husband died on 18.4.2011 and after the death of her husband, the appellant/defendant along with his wife and children moved back to the house by claiming that he was the rightful owner of the house. Since the appellant and the respondent could not live together peacefully being mistreated and tortured by the respondent and his wife, she had filed the Eviction suit before the learned trial court. The appellant in his evidence has also admitted that he and his family moved back to his father’s house before his father death in the year 2010 to take care of his sick father who died on 08.04.2011 and that he continued to stay in the house being the only son of his late father Ran Bahadur Gharty. 15. From the evidence given by both the parties, this court finds that the Eviction suit cannot barred by limitation since the cause of action would have a arisen only after the death of Mr. 15. From the evidence given by both the parties, this court finds that the Eviction suit cannot barred by limitation since the cause of action would have a arisen only after the death of Mr. Ran Bahadur Gharty, wherein the appellant/defendant continued to live in the house covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013 and because of the disputes that arose between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent/plaintiff had filed the Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2015 in 2015 16. The evidence of the respondent, as plaintiff witness shows that she was self-employed women and that she bought the plot of land with the hut standing therein at Saitual Chhimveng in the year 1985, wherein she constructed the Assam type building with hard earned money. During her cross-examination, she had denied the suggestion that the suit property she purchased by her late husband. The fact that she was self-employee was not questioned before the learned trial court. The evidence of PW- 3 also shows that the respondent use to run a small/variety stall at Saitual. The plaintiff witness No.2 Zoramchhana shows that the plaintiff/respondent had bought the disputed plot from C. Laldawla (L). The plaintiff witness No.3 Lalsangliana has also deposed that the respondent had bought her present resident from C. Laldawla (L) and therefore the LSC was also mutated in her name. 17. The appellant has stated that the suit property was bought by his late father from Mr. Rohmingthanga and he was the one handed over the money that though the LSC was not issued in the name of his late father being the true a legal heir of the deceased father he was entitled to inherit of the suit land. However during his cross-examination he admitted that he did not submit any documents to show that his father purchased the landed property from Mr. Rohmingthanga located at Saitual. It is however noted that the witness for the defendant/appellant/wife of the appellant had mentioned that the suit property was bought from Shri C. Laldawla (L) and that the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty had bought another plot of land from Mr. Rohmingthanga of Tualbung @ of Rs.37,000/-. 18. Rohmingthanga located at Saitual. It is however noted that the witness for the defendant/appellant/wife of the appellant had mentioned that the suit property was bought from Shri C. Laldawla (L) and that the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty had bought another plot of land from Mr. Rohmingthanga of Tualbung @ of Rs.37,000/-. 18. For the above reasons from the evidence on record, this court finds no reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned trial court that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the land and building covered under LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. 19. The issue whether the respondent is the legal wife of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty has already been decided by the fact that the respondent is receiving the pension of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty. 20. This court also finds that since the respondent is declared the rightful owner of LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013, the appellant at this stage cannot claim the right to live in the house covered by LSC No.CAD-658 of 2013. It is also noted that the appellant has admitted that he had moved into the house only in 2010 to look after his sick father and thereafter continued to stay in the house claiming that he was the only son of the deceased Ran Bahadur Gharty and therefore the rightful legal heir. Thus it is an admitted fact that he had left the main house on his marriage. 21. In view of the above observations, I find no reason to interfere with findings of the learned lower court finding no merit in the instant appeal. 22. R.F.A. No.33 of 2021 thus stands dismissed and disposed of.