SAILALA Vs. NGURTAIVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision under Clause 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction Over District Council Courts) Order, 1954, directed against the judgement and order of the District Council Court, Aizawl, reversing the judgement and order of the Magistrate, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl. The revision is filed by the defendant, Sailala, the petitioner herein, against the plaintiff Smt. Ngurtaiveli, Opposite Party.

(2.) THE dispute is about the ownership of a house and its compound in the northern side of Chaltlang filed between brother and sister. One Thangphunga, Chief of Chaltlang village, died sometime in 1951, leaving behind him his daughter Smt. Ngurtaiveli, opposite party, by his first wife and two sons Sailala, petitioner, and Lalengmawia, by the second wife married after the death of his first wile. Smt. Ngurtaiveli's husband, R.D. Leta died on 12-4-25 leaving behind a son, Sri Lalsikula, by another wife. It is the case of the plaintiff-opposite party that the disputed house belonged to her husband, Late R.D. Leta. After the death of her husband, she lived in the house; but she was forced to leave it in the last part of 1927, being driven out by Smt. Tauhhnuali, younger sister of her husband and Sri Lalsikula, claiming that Lalsikula was the rightful owner of the suit premises as heir to his father, R.D. Leta, under the Mizo Customary law of inheritance. Lalsikula was then aged about 16 years, and money was needed for his educational expenses. Later on, at the intervention of Makthanga, Chief of Rashimveng, Aizawl, who was regarded as the brother of R.D. Leta, an agreement was arrived at between them on 13-4-28, under which the suit house was sold to the opposite party at Rs. 500.00. It was reduced into writing marked, Ext. 2. The opposite party thereafter reoccupied the suit house. Her father Thangphunga came to know later on the treatment meted out to her and the transaction between them, but he raised no objection to it. It is further the case of the plaintiff-opposite party that her father, Thangphunga, lived in the main village Sehlawh while a Chief and Chaltlang was his sub-village. Sailala, the petitioner, while a young boy lived with her at Chaltlang in the disputed house studying in school. When Sailala joined Government service as a Circle Interpreter, he also lived in the suit house with her. After he had succeeded his father as a Chief in 1944, he lived at Sehlawh village. Chiefship was abolished in 1953, and with the compensation money, he built a house of his own at Bawngkawn, where he had shifted. While he was living with her, he owned a big garden adjacent to the suit land, which had been acquired subsequently by Government for construction of a Tourist Lodge. The petitioner, obtained from her "no objection certificate" as an adjacent owner at the time of the acquisition, evidencing thereby her title to the suit premises. It was further averred that the petitioner's brother Lalengmawia occupied the suit premises and ill-treated her, forcing her to live with her sister in another compound. The petitioner and his brother in assertion of title to the suit premises managed them to get the same mutated in the name of the petitioner by converting it into patta land. Hence, the present compliant filed by Smt. Ngurtaiveli, the opposite party, before the Magistrate, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawal, claiming declaration of her title to the suit premises as an owner and eviction of Lalengmawia therefrom. The case was registered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 1975.

(3.) IN the trial Court, a number witnesses were examined on both the sides and some documents were also produced. The trial Court came to the finding that it could not determine the real tact about the ownership of the suit premises. It, however, made some observations which showed that there was no clear proof of ownership of Thangphunga. The trial Court, after dismissing the evidence, held the view that both the parties failed to establish their respective cases and ordered that the defendant-petitioner should construct a house for his sister within the compound of the suit house within one year, failing which the plaintiff-opposite party should take possession of the suit house.