NAMBAM MANGI SINGH Vs. KEISHAM N INAKHUNBI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third round of litigation. The earlier suit was filed by the present appellant No. 1, Shri Nambam Mangi Singh. The appellants No. 2 and 3 were the proforma defendants. Respondent No. 5, Smt. Phijam (N) Nungshitombi Devi was the principal Defendant No. 1. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 2 of 1989. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, which was challenged in the court of District Judge. The appeal was numbered as F. A. No. 1 of 1995. While disposing of the appeal, the suit was remanded back for fresh disposal vide judgment and order dated 16. 01. 1994. This remand order was assailed in the High Court vide Second Appeal No. 9 of 1996. The High Court approved the order of remand. Accordingly, the suit went back to the original court for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the suit was re-numbered as Original Suit No. 40 of 2000. This time the suit was dismissed on 31. 11. 2001. However, the trial Court's judgment was set aside in F. A. No. 5 of 2002. The said decree was assailed before this court in Second Appeal No. 2 of 2002. This Second Appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree in favour of Shri Mangi Singh vide judgment and order dated 14. 8. 2003.

(2.) IN the third round, the maternal aunts and uncle of the land owner, Inakhunbi Devi, Khomdonbi Devi, Pashot Devi and (L) Jayantakumar Singh instituted the instant suit seeking a decree of rights, title and interest over the same suit land. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 45 of 2003 in the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 1, Manipur East. Subsequently, the suit was re-numbered as 19 of 2004. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that the earlier decree passed in favour of Shri Mangi Singh, affirmed in First Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2001 as well as in the Second Appeal No. 2 of 2002, was obtained by committing fraud. In other words, the plaintiffs also prayed for a decree to set aside the earlier decree and consequential relief of perpetual injunction against Shri Mangi Singh. Other defendants of the previous suit were impleaded as proforma defendants.

(3.) THE learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur East has decreed the suit in favour of Smt. Inakhumbi Devi and others and has also decreed that the earlier decree passed in favour of Shri Mangi Singh by the District Judge, Manipur East on 10. 4. 2002 in First Appeal No. 5 of 2001 and affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 2 of 2002 were fraudulently obtained. The learned trial judge has further declared that the plaintiffs shall inherit the suit land with the building situated thereon and more particularly described in Schedule A of the plaint under rule of succession laid down in Section 8 read with Clause II, Entry IX of the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter the 'h. S. Act' in brief ). This judgment and decree is under challenge in the present appeal.