ONGBI THAMBAINAMBI DEVI Vs. L NINGOL LEINAMBI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the JUDGMENT & ORDER dated 3.3.87 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 20/72. A preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the respondents that this appeal is not maintainable, which we have to decide before the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits.

(2.) The relevant facts for disposal of this preliminary point briefly are that the appellant Smti. Kh. Ningol Ningthemcha Ongbi Thambainambi Devi filed Title. Suit No, 17 1964/8/1971/38/1971 in forma pauperis for some reliefs in respect of the suit land. In the said suit as many as 37 defendants were impleaded. The case made out in the plaint as regards defendant Nos. 1 to 6 was that the suit property fell exclusively to the shares of the said defendants until it was transferred to the plaintiff by execution of three registered Gift Deeds dated 7.3,54, 8.3.54 and 21.3.54 with delivery of possession and the plaintiff accepted the said Gifts and took possession of the suit land from the date of execution of the said Gift Deeds. The plaintiffs case as regards defendant Nos. 7 to 10 is that the title of the plaintiff has been clouded by the hostile claim of the defendant Nos. 7 to 10. Regarding defendant Nos. 11 to 37, it has been pleaded in the plaint that the said defendants are possessing the said suit land on behalf of defendants Nos. 7 to 10 and that defendant Nos. 8 to 10 had executed registered Sale Deeds in favour of some of the defendants which were void and were liable to be cancelled. In the said suit, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of right, title and interest in the said suit land, for adjudging the sale deeds executed by defendants Nos. 7 to 10 as void, for recovery of possession of the suit land from defendant Nos. 7 to 37, for mesne profit of the suit land for wrongful possession of the suit land by defendant Nos. 7 to 37 and for perpetual injunction against defendants Nos. 7 to 37 restraining them from invading the lights of the plaintiff to enjoy the suit land. After the trial of the suit, the learned District Judge, Manipur, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 14.7.72. Aggrieved, the appellant filed First Appeal No. 20/72 before this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said appeal by

(3.) Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 3.3.81, the present Letters Patent Appeal was presented on 12.6,87 with only defendant Nos. 7 to 10 as the principal respondents. In the said appeal, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant Nos. 11 to 37 were not impleaded as respondents. When the appeal was taken by the Division Bench on 16.6.87, Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for time to file an application under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC, which was allowed by the Division Bench but the Division Bench directed issue of notices to the respondents to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. Pursuant to the said direction, notices appear to have been issued by the office on 30.6.87 and returned after proper service as would be evident from the order sheet. In the meanwhile, an application was presented by the appellant on 19.6.87 which was numbered as Civil (Misc) Application No. 254/87 in which me appellant prayed for granting her permission to sue the contesting defendant Nos. 7 to 10 in their representative capacity as representing their privies and transferees of the suit land namely defendant Nos. 11 to 37 in the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 and Section 151 CPC and also prayed for striking out the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 who were stated to be merely proforma parties who had not contested the suit. When the said Civil (Misc) Application No. 254/87 was taken up by the Division Bench on 27.7.89, an order was passed that the Civil (Misc) Application would be posted after service of notices on the respondents of the appeal. The appeal was thereafter taken up for admission on 12.9.89 by the Division Bench and the Division Bench directed that the appeal shall be heard and allowed the prayer of the appellant to issue notices on the main respondents. More than a year thereafter when the aforesaid Civil (Misc) Application No. 254/87 was placed before the Division Bench on 21.11.90. Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the Civil (Misc) Application had already been disposed of on 12.9.89 by an order passed in the appeal and accordingly the Division Bench passed orders on 23.11.90 that the Misc. Case be closed. Thereafter, the appeal was listed for hearing but as there was no representation on behalf of the respondents on 21.11.94, the Division Bench passed an order directing special notice on respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 informing them of the date for hearing. Pursuant to the said order, notices were issued on respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 and in response to the said notices, the respondents appeared through their counsel.