R K MADHURYYAJIT SINGH Vs. TAKHELLAMBAM ABUNG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal, are stated briefly hereinbelow :The suit was instituted by the plaintiff No. 1, Shri R. K. Madhuryyajit Singh, as a Shebait on his behalf and also on behalf of Shri Mahaprabhu, a Hindu Vaishnava deity installed at Janmasthan, Moirangkhom, Imphal (Plaintiff No. 2) for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff No. 2 over the suit land and the plaintiff No. 1 is its Shebait and that the plaintiffs have absoluteright of possession and enjoyment over the suit land without any hinderrance from the defendants and their privies, agents; a decree for perpetual injunction and also a decree for recovery of damages and compensation from the defendants for the interference and disturbance caused by them. As per the pleadings of the parties, they and their predecessors-in-interest are all Manipuri Hindus governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law except the plaintiff No. 2 which is a Hindu Vaishnava deity/idol. The suit land is an agricultural land under patta No. 30/151 (Old)/254 (new)/ Thoubal comprising C.S. Dags No. 1192, 1194, 165 and 167 situated in village No. 30 Kshetri Leikai within Thoubal Sub-Division and belongs to and recorded in the name of Shri Mahaprabhu, a Hindu Vaishnava deity, installed and worshipped by late Premamayee alias Ngangbi Maharani at Janmesthan, Imphal which is the plaintiff No. 2 and represented by its shebait, the plaintiff No. 1. Late Maharani Premamayee alias Ngangbi Maharani, the queen-consort of late Surchandra Maharaja of Manipur was the founder and a shebait of the said Shree Mahaprabhu which was installed and worshipped in a temple constructed on the homestead land under patta No. 40/145 (old)/154 (new)/IW situated at Janmasthan which the Maharani dedicated to the deity. The queen-consort of late Surchandra Maharaja also dedicated the suit land to the deity for its seva-puja and was managing and enjoying the suit land as a Shebait till her death. Ngangbi Maharani died on the 5th day of Wakching, 1848 Sakabda without leaving any issue. The said date corresponds to the 8th of January, 1927. Her adopted son, legates and natural heir, R. K. Birehandrajit alias Birchandra Singh, the son of her younger sister Kunjamala, inherited all her properties including the Shebaitship of Shree Mahaprabhu, the deity. Said natural heir of the late Ngangbi Maharani continuted to worship and offer sevapuja to the deity at its temple at Janmasthan, Moirangkhom, Imphal and managed and enjoyed the suit land as such Shebait till his death. On the death of R.K. Birehandrajit intestate in 1934, the plaintiff No. 1 as the sole heir of late R.K. Birehandrajit alias Birchandra Singh, inherited all the properties including the Shebaitship of the said deity till institution of the suit. The plaintiff No. 1 as such Shebait was enjoying and managing the suit land by growing paddy crops from year to year by engaging local agricultural workers.

(2.) The plaintiff No. 1 got his name mutated as early as in 1947 in place of the name of Maharani Premamayee alias Ngangbi Maharani in the racords of right in respect of all the lands other than the suit land left by the Ngangbi Maharani including the homestead land under patta No. 40/145 (old)/154(new)/IW wherein the said deity's temple and Mandap were/are stending and the deity was/is usually installed and worshipped. However, through inadvertence, the mutation of the suit land was not effected before 1982. The name of the plaintiff No. 1 was recorded as the Shebait of the deity in respect of the suit land only on 19-5-82. But the defendants without any semblance of title and right to the suit lands as also to the shebaitship of the said deity, managed the suit land in May and June, 1982 behind the back of the plaintiff and also managed to substitute some of their names as the shebait of the deity as als got some of their names recorded as tenants in the land records in a collusive and fraudulent manner. The plaintiff thereafter diligently took steps to rectify the illegal entries in the records of right and instituted proceedings in the higher revenue Court/Tribunal which were/are still pending till institution of the suit, as was averred in the plaint. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendants since May and June, 1982 have been claiming hostile title to the plaintiff in respect of the suit land by purporting to recently set-up and to have been worshipping a so-called deity of Shree Mahaprabhu in the compound of the defendant No. 1 thereby clouding the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land for which the suit was instituted for a declaration that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff No. 1 and that the plaintiff No. 1 was the shebait of plaintiff No. 2 having the sole right of managing and enjoying the suit land as such shabait without any interference from the defendants. It was also pleaded that any defendants and their man since July, 1983 were trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and to turn-out the men of plaintiff No. 1 employed by him in the suit land for day to day cultivation work with a view to take forcible possession over the suit land at any cost for which, the defendants were/are liable to be restrained from indulging in such wrongful and illegal acts temporarily and perpetually and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit land and management/enjoyment of the said suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants who filed a joint written statement. The defendants did not dispute that the suit land was an agricultural and recorded in thename of a Hindu Vaishnava deity, but they denied that the suit land belonged to the said deity, the plaintiff No. 2, and also denied that the said deity of Shree Mahaprabhu was installed and worshipped by late Maharani Premamayee alias Ngangbi Maharani of Janmasthan. They further denied that the plaintiff No. 1 was/is the shebait of the said deity. The defendants further denied that the late Maharani Premamayee had any alias and that she was the queen-consort of late Surchandra Maharaja of Manipur; they also denied that late Maharani premamayee was the founder and the shebait of the said deity of Shree Mahaprabhu at Janmasthan during her lifetime. It was denied that the said deity of Shree Mahaprabhu was installed and worshipped in a temple constructed on the homestead land under Patta No. 40/145/154 (new) IWT situated at Janmasthan, Moirangkhom which was dedicated to the deity by the late Nganbgbi Maharani. The defendants denied that the late Maharani Premamayee was enjoying and managing the suit land as the shebait of the said deity till her death. They denied that the late Ngangbi Maharani died issueless in 1926 and that she adopted R. K. Birachandrajit alias Birachandra Singh, son of her own younger sister Kunjabala, or that said Birchandra Singh inherited all her properties including the shebaitship of the said deity. Further, it was denied that said Birachandrajit alias Birachandra Singh continued to worship and offer seva puja to the said deity of Shree Mahaprabhu and was managing and enjoying the suit land as such shebait of the deity till his death. The defendants denied that after the death of Birachandra Singh alias R. K. Birachandrajit in 1934, as his son and the sole heir, plaintiff No. 1 inherited all his properties including the shebaitship of the said deity or that the plaintiff No. 1 also has been continuing to worship and offer seva puja to the deity in the said temple at Janmasthan and has been managing and enjoying the suit land by growing paddy crops thereon on engaging local agricultural workers from year to year through his Loupanaba. The defendants stated in their written statement that they had no knowledge about mutation of the name of the plaintiff in the records of right with respect to the land belonging to the late Maharani Premamayee alias Ngangbi Maharani other than that in respect of the suit land; but they came to know about his name being mutated in respect of the suit land on 19-5-82 behind the back of the defendants in collusion with the revenue staff. That against such inclusion of the name of the plaintiff in the records of right behind their back, the defendant No. 1 filed a petition to the S.D.C. for cancelling the same and the SDC passed on order for deciding their respective claim of ownership of the land in a competent civil Court and cancelled his previous order allowing recording of the name of the plaintiff No. 1 in the record of rights as a shebait. But against this order of the SDC also, the defendant No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner-(C) and the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 25-5-83 passed in the aforesaid revenue revision case No. 38/82, set aside the recording of the name of the plaintiff No. 1 as the shebait. It was, however, stated by the defendants that they got their names mutated as co-shebaits of the suit land in the record of rights on the basis of their right, title, possession and mutual arrangement of shebaitship and that during the survey operation also, the factum of possession by the defendants over the suit land was recorded by including the name of the defendant No. 1 in the Khatian. While denying the allegations levelled against them in the plaint, the defendants in turn pleaded that the deity of Shree Mahaprabhu in whose name the suit land stood, was installed and worshipped by one Shri Takhellambam Manik Singh, the deceased grand father of the defendant No. 1, viz. Shri Takhellambam Abung Singh, and the said land was reclaimed by said Manik Singh for the benefit of the said deity of Shree Mahaprabhu installed at the Ingkhol under Patta No. 30/176/70 Th. T. belonging to the family of Takhellambam of Thoubal Kshetri Leikai. Further that when Manipur was a princely State, Maharani Dhanamanjury who was popularly known as Ngangbi Maharani, the queen-consort of the late Shri Churachand Maharaja, gave offering to the said deity during one of her royal visits and on that occasion late Takhellambam Manik Singh requested the said Maharani Ngangbi to make arrangement for recording the said paddy fields (lands) in the name of the said deity; but subsequently, it was discovered that the name of the late Ngangbi Maharani was recorded as the shebait of the said deity in respect of the said paddy fields, the present suit lands, without the konwledge and consent of the real shebait, Manik Singh. However, no objection could be raised to such acts of the Maharani and her name continued to appear in the records of right though she was never the shebait. That the presentdefendant No. 1 inherited the shebaitship and the land in dispute through his late father, Sanajao Singh, son of Takhellambam Manik Singh and that it is because of this that his name has been recorded in the khatian of the suit land and as the tenant/possessor of the whole suit land. Further, the defendants stated that there was no other queen of Manipur known as Ngangbi Meharani other than Maharani Dhanamanjury Devi and that during 1926 when the patta of the suit land was granted, she was very much in power while late Premamayee Devi was out of power as her husband's dynasty, i.e. Kata has been dethroned. In order to facilitate regular cultivation and proper management of the said deity, the defendant No. 1 sub-let some portion of the suit land on condition of payment of Loushal to him. It further stated that about three years back, the plaintiff No. 1 came to the house of defendant No. 1 demanding payment of Louchal claiming himself to be the heir of the last owner of the suit land, but the same was refused. The defendants further stated that they had been all along possessing the suit land without any interruption from any quarter over the suit land for last many years and also they observed/made panchami Outaba in their respective portions of land. The defendants denied that the plaintiff No. 1 has/had any Loupanaba or any cultivator and that since the plaintiff No. 1 was not in possession of the suit land, the suit was hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants reiterated that Maharani Premamayee though was a Ngangbam Ningom, had no alias name and that nor was she known as Ngangbi Maharani, as alleged by the plaintiffs. Further that it was Maharani Dhanamanjuri, the queen-consrot of late Churachand Maharaja of Manipur, who was popularly known as Ngangbi Maharani and who had the locus standi to file the suit and not the plaintiff or the plaintiffs.