LALPEINGFEL HMAR Vs. REBECCA HMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff appellant is that his father late Tuola Hmar was the recorded pattadar of a homestead land extending to an area of 0.09 acre under Dag No. 1111, Village No.104-Lanva Tampak with a residential house thereon. He and other family members were residing in the said house till the death of his father on 7.6.1978. His father died leaving behind 10 children out of whom 4 are sons and the rest are daughters. After death of the father, plaintiff appellant has been living in the said house. Some years after the death of his father, his elder brother namely Jeff L.Biekthang (deceased) and his family shifted to the said house from a rented house at Tiddim Road, Churachandpur and were living together. Further case of the plaintiff appellant is that he is the owner of the house and according to customary law governing them he is the rightful person to inherit all the properties both movable and immovable left by his deceased father. However, in the month of Jan., 2005 he learnt that an area of .062 acre had been illegally mutated in the name of his elder brother, deceased Jeff Biekthang in the year, 1983 and thereafter it was again mutated in the name of Secretary, Pangkhawm Society in the year 2003. The third mutation was done in the name of the defendant respondent who happens to be the wife of his elder brother late Jeff Biekthang under a registered Gift Deed dated 25.10.2004. The remaining land extending to an area of .028 acre had also been illegally mutated in the name of his elder sister, Smt. Kapkim in the year, 1993. Having come to know about such illegal mutation, the plaintiff appellant approached his elder sister to settle the matter amicably according to custom. His elder sister conceded to the proposal of the plaintiff appellant and consequently the balance area of .028 acre was to be settled according to customary law in favour of the plaintiff appellant. However, his sister in-law, i.e. the defendant respondent, did not agree to the proposal for which the plaintiff appellant had to file a suit for declaration of his title over the suit land and also for a declaration that the registered gift deed bearing No.196 of 2004 executed in favour of the respondent is void.

(3.) The defendant respondent contested the suit and filed a written statement along with a counter claim. The case of the defendant respondent is that her late father-in-law, Tuola Hmar, was the absolute owner of the suit land extending to an area of 0.09 acre being patta No.131/130 of village No.104 Lanva Tampak covered by CS Dag No.1111. In the year, 1975 late Tuola Hmar suffered from Tuberculosis and asked her husband late Jeff Biekthang to live with him in the house built at the suit land as the plaintiff had become a drunkard. In the same year, late Tuola Hmar verbally gifted the suit land to his elder son, Jeff Biekthang (husband of the defendant) and thereafter late Jeff Biekthang built a semi pucca residential house on the said gifted land and lived with his father late Tuola Hmar till his death. The further case of the defendant respondent is that late Jeff Biekthang extended the suit building with the help of the defendant by taking loan from PDA under Housing Phase-X in the year,1997. Since the building could not be completed, late Jeff Biekthang gifted the suit land to the defendant on 25.10.2004 for obtaining another housing loan from UBI Churachandpur Branch in the year 2004. Out of the 0.09 acre late Jeff L.Biekthang also gave away 0.028 acre to his unmarried sister and the plaintiff in the year, 1993. The said plot was mutated in favour of Miss Kapkim and a residential building was built with his help where his unmarried sister and the plaintiff lived. Therefore, the claim of the defendant respondent is that her late husband, Jeff Biekthang, had acquired the suit land by way of an oral Gift from his father, Tuola Hmar, in the year, 1975 and remained in possession till his death in 2006. Thereafter, the defendant is continuing to occupy the said house to the knowledge of the plaintiff and has accordingly acquired title by way of adverse possession. The defendant respondent also claimed title over the said land on the basis of the Gift Deed executed by her late husband. The description of the property given to the defendant respondent over which she claimed title is described in Schedule-B of the counter claim.