LAWS(GAU)-2002-3-34

THANGJAM SURUP SINGH Vs. THANGJAM KARUNAMAYA SINGH

Decided On March 15, 2002
THANGJAM SURUP SINGH Appellant
V/S
THANG JAM KARUNAMAYA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr A. Bimol, earned counsel for the petitioners and Mr R.K. Sanajaoba, learned senior counsel being assisted by Ms, Ch. Sundari, learned counsel for the respondents,

(2.) This composite petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C, and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioners assailing the order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Manipur East in Judl. Misc. Case Nos. 16/2001 and 17/2001, arising out of Original Suit No. 1/2000.

(3.) A title suit bearing No. O.S. 1/2000 has been filed by Smti. Thangjam Ongbi Iheyaima Devi seeking declaration of title, partition of her share and cancellation of gift deed. The plaintiff arrayed as many as 9 (nine) defendants, of whom defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are her own sons. During the pendency of the suit, the principal defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed a petition seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff having no right, title and inlerest over the suit land filed the suit. The parties to the suit have been/are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law and since the original owner, the husband of the plaintiff died in 1947, the plaintiff being widow acquired no right, title and interest over the property left by her late husband Thangjam Raghumani Singh. While the aforesaid petition was pending, the plaintiff filed a petition under order XX III Rule 1A of the C.P.C. for abandonment of her suit. On the same date her sons, defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9,filled a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXIII Rule 1A of the CPC seeking transposition of their name aS plaintiffs The learned trial Court after hearing the parties allowed both the petitions by the impugned order dated 16,5.2001. The learned trial Court allowed the plaintiff abandon her suit and allowed the defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 to be transposed as plaintiffs in the suit.