SH LALBUANGA Vs. LALTHANGFALA S/O ROHMINGTHANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H.Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for all the respondens.

(2.) The respondents are the children of Thansanga (L) and Rohmingthangi. The father of the respondents, Thansanga died in the year 1969 and thereafter, his wife Rohmingthangi settled the land covered by LSC No. 211 of 1980 in her name. During her lifetime, the mother of the respondents gave the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 their share of the land over which both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 constructed their respective houses and occupied the same with their families. The mother of the respondents died in the year 1994 and thereafter, one Sh. Biaksanga who was the brother of the respondents father had distributed the property in dispute vide IN HMUN SIAMREMNA on 25.09.1998. In the meantime, the respondent No.4 had sold the portion of the disputed land to the present petitioner in January, 1999 by executing a sale deed. The respondent No. 4 thereafter, applied for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of LSC No. 211 of 1980 which was registered as Heirship Certificate Case no. 496 of 1999 before the then Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl.

(3.) Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present revision petition has been filed on very limited grounds i.e. that the petitioner was not made a party before the learned Trial Court and in his absence, the sale deed entered between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 could not have been held to be illegal and null and void. He also submits that as the petitioner was not made a party, no adverse orders could have been passed by the learned Trial Court against the petitioner. Therefore, being aggrieved with the decision of the learned Trail Court interfering with the sale deed entered in January 1999 between the respondent No.4 and the present petitioner, he had filed the first appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court had failed to consider whether the petitioner/appellant was a party before the learned Trail Court and had simply dismissed the appeal and therefore, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.