Manipur High Court
Tongbram Shantikumar Singh vs Smt. Mongjam (O) Memcha Devi on 5 May, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item no. 20-22
Digitally signed
OINAM by OINAM
THOIBA MEITEI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
THOIBA Date:
2026.05.06
MEITEI 12:05:56
+05'30'
RSA No. 10 of 2017 with
MC(RSA) No. 4 of 2025 with
MC(RSA) No. 7 of 2026
Tongbram Shantikumar Singh
.... Appellant
- Versus -
Smt. Mongjam (O) Memcha Devi
.... Respondent
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
05.05.2026
[1] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Vikash
Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Premchand, learned
counsel for the respondent.
[2] Vide order dated 13.09.2017, this Court had already framed
3(three) issues and the same is reproduced below:
I. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in deciding
Issue No. 1 that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of
the suit land only on the finding of possession?
II. Whether a decree for permanent injunction in terms of
Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act can be passed only on
the basis of possession?
III. Whether in the absence of title documents, entry in the
Patta/Jamabandi is sufficient to confer title of the suit land?
[3] The appellant/defendant filed an application being MC(RSA) No.
4 of 2025 for framing an additional substantial question of law in addition to the
above 3(three) issues already framed by order dated 13.09.2017 and the
proposed additional issue which reads as follows:
“Whether the suit of the Plaintiff in her name only without
impleading a minor necessary party is defective and validly
presented?”
[4] The learned sr. counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that
Trial Court has framed issue no. 4 as “Whether the suit suffers from defect of
parties or not?”. The Trial Court decided the issue in favor of the
appellant/defendant herein on the ground that the identity of the defendant is
not cleared. However, the First Appellant Court reversed the finding holding that
the suit does not suffer for any defect of the parties as the identity of the
defendant against whom the injunction is made for clearly mentioned.
[5] The learned sr. counsel for the appellant/defendant pointed out
that the whole case of the respondents/plaintiff is that the land is inherited by
her minor son and her name is recorded in the Jamabandi and defect of the
plaintiff parties was never considered by the Court. In the circumstances, the
additional issue regarding defect in the plaintiff is raised in the present
application.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. S. Premchand, learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff submits that there is no defect in the parties as the plaintiff
is the recorded pattadar and the suit was filed by her and this question has
already been decided by the First Appellant Court. The respondent/plaintiff also
filed an application being MC(RSA) No. 7 of 2026 seeking the leave for filing reply
to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
[7] This Court has perused the materials on record. Even though
issue no. 4 is about the defect in the parties, both the original and First Appellate
Courts decided the matter restricted to the defect in the defendant and the defect
in the plaintiff was never considered. This Court is of the view that defect in
plaintiff is to be decided in the present case. Accordingly, additional substantial
question of law framed as –
“Whether the suit of the Plaintiff in her name only without
impleading a minor necessary party is defective and validly
presented?”.
[8] Mr. S. Premchand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
submits that he reserves the right to argue at the time of hearing that the
additional question framed is not a substantial question of law in terms of the
proviso to Sub-Section 5 (100) of the C.P.C.
[9] With the above observations, the MC(RSA) No. 4 of 2025 and
MC(RSA) No. 7 of 2026 are disposed of.
[10] List the main RSA No. 10 of 2017 for hearing on 29.05.2026.
JUDGE
Thoiba
[ad_1]
Source link
