LAIPHRAKPAM LEIREN SINGH Vs. NONGTHOMBOM LEIREN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case arises out of a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, under section 438, Cr. P. C. to set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate -Imphal East, Manipur, dated 9 -3 -65 passed by him in N. F. I. R. case No. 309 of 1964 under section 145 (6) Cr. P. C. declaring that the respondents were in possession of the disputed land at the relevant time, that they are entitled to the possession thereof until they are evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbance of such possessions until such eviction.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case which led to the reference in question are as follows: There are about 61/2 paris of land in Matai village, covered by Pattas No. 1/282, 2/106 and 3/136 Imphal East. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners Nos. 1, 6 and 7 purchased the said" land in 1957 from the heirs of late Sir Churachand Singh, the Maharajah of Manipur under a registered sale deed, that they got their names mutated in the above mentioned pattas, in Mutation Case No. 642 of 1957 of the Sub -Deputy Collector, Imphal East on 9 -9 -1958, that since the date of the purchase, they have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the land without any interference by any one, that the remaining petitioners herein took on lease 5 paris of land, out of the disputed land from the purchasers; and that all of them jointly cultivated the land. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the 5th respondent is the Manager of the present Maharajah of Manipur, that the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land since 1957, that the 5th respondent's lessees were delivering the yield to him and that the petitioners herein have not been in possession of the land in question.

(3.) THE Sub -Divisional Magistrate posted the case to 22 -12 -64 for appearance for the parties. On that date, both the parties filed their written statements. The petitioner herein filed the affidavits of 6 witnesses and also Exts. D/1 to D/10. The respondents filed Exts. A/1 to A/4 and the affidavits of 4 witnesses. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate heard arguments on 27 -1 -65 and posted the case to 1 -2 -65 for orders. But, in the meanwhile on 29 -1 -65, the 5th respondent herein filed a petition to admit his affidavit dated 27 -1 -65 in proof of his allegations. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 5 -2 -65 allowing the petition. Subsequently, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned final order under section 145 (6) Cr. P. C. on 9 -3 -65.