RAJKUMAR SANAHAL SINGH Vs. R K KHUTASANA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionists in this Court are aggrieved by the order of interim injunction passed in a suit filed by the respondents. The respondents, in their suit, impugned the decree obtained by the revisionists in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1963, passed by the Subordinate Judge II, Manipur, which was finally affirmed by this Court and it is submitted that the Supreme Court also affirmed this Court's decision. The revisionists complain that though they were impleaded, according to the plaintiffs, as defendants 1 to 7, they were not described properly. Because, in the decree obtained by them they were described in a different manner. Accordingly, they did not enter appearance in the suit, but they filed an application to be added as a party in the injunction proceedings and the prayer was accepted and they were accordingly impleaded therein and heard.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case, in short, is that the revisionists had obtained the decree by practising fraud on the Court and by not impleading them therein and the said decree was not, therefore, binding on the plaintiffs. By the impugned decree, the revisionists obtained the declaration that they were Shebaits of the deity Gopinath and they had the right to worship the deity and to manage its property to the exclusion of the defendants. They founded their right to Shebaitship on the allegation that they were lineal descendants of late Maharajah Bheigyachandra through his son Kirtidhaja and that the deity Gopinath was given to their ancestor Kirtidhaja for worship by the late Maharajah. Plaintiff 1 claimed to be a 'Piba' or Head of the ruling clan of Pukhrambam of Ningthoukhong and as such he was the chief Shebait/ Manager of the deity Gopinath being the lineal descendant of Kirtidhaja. The particulars of fraud stated in the plaint and summed up by the trial Court are as follows:

(3.) In the said suit, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and in support of the application, plaintiff 1 filed an affidavit in support of the case made out in the plaint. In the course of hearing, 42 documents which the plaintiff filed in support of their case and also two printed books of the historical importance having a bearing on the subject-matter of dispute were also filed and relied on. The books placed before the trial Court by the plaintiffs in support of their case were : (1) Chada Lahui by Khelchandra Singh and (2) Chingthangkhomba Maharaj Ganga Chatpa by Rajkumar Sanahal Singh. The trial Court accepted the authorities as reliable historical works and relied thereon.