MOIRANGTHEM YAIMA SINGH Vs. LAISHRAM ROMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur in Judicial Misc. case No. 12 of 2014 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014 allowing an application filed by the defendant -appellant before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur for amendment of the written statement is the subject matter of challenge in this Revision.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs of cancellation of registered gift deed dt. 19.8.2006 and for perpetual injunction.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff -petitioner is that he is the owner in possession of a piece of land under patta No. 608 covered by Dag No. 6546, 6547 and 6548 extending to an area of 2.50 acres having half share therein. His co -pattadar is his elder brother. The said co -pattadar also occupied and possessed his share without interference. On 8.4.2008, when the plaintiff -petitioner went to the office of the Settlement Officer, Moirang, he found that his share of land had been mutated in the name of the defendant without his knowledge on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 19th August, 2006 purportedly executed by him in favour of the defendant -respondent. The plaintiff -petitioner immediately filed an application before the Asstt. Survey and Settlement Officer, Moirang in respect of his share of 1.25 acre of land which is the suit land and on the basis of the said application, the name of the plaintiff -petitioner was restored in the relevant land records. The plaintiff -petitioner, thereafter, sold the suit land to one Oinam Manisana Singh of Chigmei village and consequently his name was mutated in the records of the suit land by order dated 12.5.2009 passed in Mutation Case No. 111/AS and SO/Moirang. The plaintiff -petitioner came to know that the defendant -respondent again managed to restore her name in the land records in respect of the share of the plaintiff -petitioner by order of the Director of Settlement, Govt. of Manipur on the basis of the said gift deed. It is the case of the plaintiff -petitioner that he had never transferred the suit land in favour of the defendant -respondent in any manner. The defendant -respondent had forged signature of the plaintiff -petitioner by impersonating him in preparing and registering the gift deed. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff -petitioner to declare the said gift deed dated 19th August, 2006 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction.