LAWS(GAU)-2011-5-31

RUALKHUMI Vs. LALVUANI

Decided On May 12, 2011
RUALKHUMI Appellant
V/S
LALVUANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl in RFA No. 8/07 allowing the appeal presented by the plaintiff/ appellant and reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.4.07 passed by the then Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 7 of 1998 dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law : Whether the Judgment and Order rendered by First Appellate Court on 24.9.2010 passed in RFA No. 8 of 2007 is perverse?

(3.) 2 (two) sets of written statements were filed-one by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the other by the defendant No. 6. In the written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, it was stated that the plaintiff had unauthorisedly occupied and constructed a house within the area covered by LSC No. Azl.1383 of 1994 belonging to the defendant No. 6 and that Shri R.C. Liandawla was not the real owner of LSC No. Azl.555 of 1985. The LSC No.(Azl) 555 of 1985 was issued in the name of Pu Laldingliana and the same was cancelled by the competent authority in pursuance of an agreement by "concerned persons". It was stated that Laldingliana was the owner and the holder of LSC No. Azl.555 of 1985 upto 24.3.1992 and his prayer for transfer of land to ITI Veng was considered. It was also stated that there was an alleged transfer of the LSC of Pu Laldingliana to Pu R.C. Liandawla in 1990. Such transfer was done illegally and without proper verification. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 also pleaded that they were not aware of any purchase of LSC No. Azl.555 of 1985 by the plaintiff and there are no documents on record evidencing such sale and purchase. The answering defendants also justified issuance of the demolition notice. It was also pleaded that if at all there is any dispute with regard to the land in question, it was only Pu Liandawla who could have maintained a suit and that the plaintiff did not have any locus-standi.