VUMSUAN Vs. NOKAM VAIPHEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the plaintiffs, we are concerned with a Kuki village named Mata. The dispute is between the villagers on the one side, and its Chief on the other. What led to the filing of the suit was sale of about 5 Paris of land (1 pari= 2.5 acres) on 15.10.66 by the Chief who has been arrayed as defendant No 2. The sale was in favour of defendant No.1 and was to construct a school. The grievance of the plaintiffs who came forward to represent the villager, about 700 in number is that the Chief had no authority to transfer the land. This contention was advanced mainly on two ground: (i) the suit land is a part an parcel of village reserve land which is a common and joint property of the whole village; and (ii) even if it be not a part of the village reserve, the Chief alone had no right to transfer the land. The suit was drcreed by the learned Munsiff, Beshenpur, but on appeal, it has come to be dismissed at the hand of the learned District Judge, because he has held that the suit land did not form part of the village reserve, and according to the custom, the land of the village belongs to the Chief.

(2.) Shri Sanajaoba Singh has attacked both these findings Of the learned District Judge. As we are seized with the matter in a second appeal, it would be in the fitness of things to remind ourselves about the limitations of this Court in upsetting a finding of fact. Decisions on this point are aglore and it is not proposed to burden this judgment with i them. It would be enough if we refer to two recent decisions mentioned by the two sides. Shri Sanajaoba Singh mainly refers to Madan Lal. -Vs-Gopi, AIR 1980 SC 1754, in which it was held that where the Courts below ignored the weight of preponderating circumstances and allowed their judgments to be influenced by inconsequential matters, the High Court would be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to its own independent conclusions. Shri Nilamani Singh appearing for the respondents refers to a still later decision in Bholarem -Vs- Ameer Chand, 1981 (2) SCC 414. It has been stated in this judgment that even where the findings of facts by the Courts below are wrong engrossing in excusable that by itself will not entitled the High Court interfere with the same in a second appeal in the absence of a clear errer of law.

(3.) We have, therefore, to examine the matter keeping in view the above enunciation of law. The plaintiffs has urged that the suit land was a pan of village reserve because according to them a village like that of a Mata a must have a reserve within a radians of 1/4th of -a-mile of the village, and in this reserve villagers concerned will have exclusive right to cut fuel and wood. This argument was built up on the basis of a Durbar Resolution No. 10 (a) of 20th July, 1932. According to Shri Nilamani Singh, this was a mere proposal of Durbar and there being nothing to show if His Highness the Raja had accepted the same, this cannot be said to have the force of law. In making this submission, we have been referred to Rule 6 of the Rules for the Management of the State of Manipur. Another infirmity pointed out in this connection is that the village reserve would have taken shape only after the Forest Department would have allotted a locality as mentioned in the Resolution itself. We do not propose to say anything on this aspect of the matter as according to us, the finding of the learned District Judge that the suit land did not form part of the village reserve is even otherwise unassailable. The learned Court below had come to his finding by relying on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 who had stated that one acre covering the suit land itself had been granted by the village authorities to the school. Now, this demolishes the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land formed part of the village reserve as, admittedly, nobody, not even the village authorities, could have transferred any land from the village reserve. The plaintiffs themselves having transferred a portion of the suit land to the school authority, it cannot be urged by them that the suitland was non-transferable.