PUJIBA TANGKHUL Vs. GANGUIRUNG KUBUINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal involves an important question relating to customary law of inheritance prevalent among the Kabui Tribe of Manipur. The precise question that falls for consideration is whether there prevails a custom among the Kubui Tribe whereby the daughters are excluded from inheriting immovable pro-perty left by their father even in the absence of sons and widow.

(2.) The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit which has given rise to this appeal. He was a purchaser of the suit land. His case was that the suit land belonged to one Kakchungai Kabui of Kakhulong village who died about four years before the institution of the suit leaving behind his daughter, defendant No. 1 (principal respondent herein). He also left behind two younger brothers who were pro forma defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the two pro forma defendants who were younger brothers of the deceased inherited the suit land on his death to the exclusion of his daughter according to the custom prevailing amongst the Manipuri Kabuis. The custom, according to the plain-tiff, was that females, both daughters and widow, could not inherit or succeed to any immovable property and in the absence of son, the immovable property devolved on the brothers of the deceased and in default of brothers, on the brothers' male heirs. The plaintiff purchased a portion of the suit land from the defendant No. 2 under the registered deed of sale dated 18-1-60 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000.00. He also purchased the remain-ing portion of the suit land from the defen-dant No. 3 by another registered deed of sale dated 10-12-59 at a price of Rs. 1,150.00. According to him, the delivery of possession of the suit land was also made to him by the vendors soon after the sale and since then he had been in possession of the same by constructing house thereon and paying revenue in respect thereof. The plaintiff thereafter sought mutation of the land pur-chased by him in his name. The mutation was granted by the A.S. and S.O. in his favour. The same was, however, set aside by the Chief Commissioner by order dated 12-11-62 pas-sed in a revision petition filed by the Defen-dant No. 1. The revision case had been numbered as Revision Case No. 17 of 1962. The title of the plaintiff, thus, got clouded. The defendant No. 1, taking advantage of this situation, on or about 26-1-63 trespassed upon a portion of the suit land described in Schedule 'C' to the plaint. A criminal case was started by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 but to no effect. The defendant No. 1 continued in her unauthorised occupation despite the criminal cases. Situated thus, the plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration of his title over the suit land, recovery of possession of a portion thereof and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with his possession and also for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month.

(3.) The defendants 2 and 3, the brothers of the deceased owner of the suit land, who had sold it to the plaintiff, did not contest the suit. So it proceeded ea parte against them. The defendant No. 1, the daughter of the deceased owner contested the suit. Her contention was that after the death of her father Kake Homgai Kubai, who admittedly was the owner of the suit land, she inherited the suit land. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had no right to transfer the same, and as such, the plaintiff derived no title to the suit land on the basis of sale deeds executed by them. Her further case was that the plaintiff had never been in possession thereof as a owner. He came to occupy a portion of the suit land as she herself allowed him to occupy the same to facilitate the education of her children. She denied the existence of the alleged custom. Her case was that there existed no custom amongst the Kubui tribe of Manipur having the force of law or otherwise according to which the daughters and widows were to be excluded or debarred from inheriting the immovable properties left by the father or the husband. She categorically denied that in her tribe in the absence of sons, immovable property of the deceased devolved upon the brothers and in the absence of the latter, upon the brothers' male heirs.