Manipur High Court
Konthoujam Tilotama Devi vs Konthoujam Hrishikesh on 14 July, 2026
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2026.07.14
19:17:39 +05'30'
REPORTABLE
Item No. 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MAT. APP. No. 12 of 2025
Konthoujam Tilotama Devi, aged about 56 years (DOB: 1.3.1969),
an unmarried daughter by marital status, a house-hold-woman by
occupation, D/o. Late Konthoujam Sharatchandra Singh and Late
Konthoujam (O) Saikhom Kalyani Devi of Sagolband Meino
Leirak, P.O. & PS. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
... Appellant/Plaintiff
- Versus -
1. Konthoujam Hrishikesh, aged about 60 years.
2. Konthoujam Umakanta, aged about 58 years.
3. Konthoujam Bankabihari, aged about 53 years.
..... All are son of Late Konthoujam Sharatchandra Singh and
Late Konthoujam (o) Saikhom Kalyani Devi of
Sagolband Meino Leirak, PO & PS. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur-795001
... Respondents/Defendants
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the appellant : Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Laishram Sanamacha Singh,
Advocate.
Date of hearing & order : 14.07.2026
Page 1|5
O R D E R
[M. Sundar, CJ]
[1] A very interesting scenario has unfurled in the captioned
matter. Captioned matter was referred to mediation, mediation was
successful, settlement has been arrived at and terms of settlement
have been reduced to writing but learned counsel for appellant
(instead of an order in terms of the terms of settlement) seeks leave
of this Court to withdraw the captioned appeal but with preservation of
rights to file a suit afresh. The reason is, Mr. Syed Murtaza Ahmed,
learned counsel for sole appellant and Mr. Laishram Sanamacha
Singh, learned counsel on record for all three respondents submit in
one voice, that captioned matter is directly and squarely covered by
an order dated 19.02.2026 made in MAT. APP. No. 6 of 2026 by this
Court and scanned reproduction of this order is as follows:
‘Sl. No. 1(Suppl)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Mat. App. No.6 of 2026
Km. Huidrom Bimoti Devi, aged about 45 years, D/O Late H.
Gyanesor Singh, resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, PO &
PS Imphal, District Imphal West, Manipur.
Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Huidrom Bijenti Devi, aged about 48 years, W/O Loukrakpam
Kiran Singh, resident of Singjamei Mayengbam Leikai, PO & PS
Singjamei, District Imphal West, Manipur.
2. Shri Huidrom Naresh Singh, aged about 44 years, S/O Late H.
Gyanesor Singh, resident of Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, PO &
PS Imphal, District, Imphal West, Manipur
3. Smt. Huidrom Garina Devi, aged about 37 years, W/O Naoroibam
Robi Singh, resident of Heingang Panthoibi Leikai, PO Mantripukhri,
PS Heingang, District Imphal East, Manipur.
Page 2|5
Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
(ORDER)
(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)
19.02.2026.
[1] After some arguments, Mr. TH. Kunjaraj Singh, learned
counsel on record for the sole appellant sought leave of this Court to
withdraw captioned appeal but made a plea to preserve all the rights
and contentions of the sole appellant to file another suit in the
jurisdictional Family Court seeking declaration qua State and other
Governmental authorities who may be necessary for appellant to get
Family Pension vide office memorandum dated 17.05.2011 made by
Government of Manipur Secretariat: Finance Department (Pay
Implementation Cell) read with a corrigendum dated 27.06.2011.
[2] A scanned reproduction of the endorsement made by
learned counsel on record for sole appellant in the case file is as
follows:
[3] Though it is a case of withdrawal, we deem it
appropriate to write that withdrawal became necessary inter-alia owing
to Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘sad Act’) which makes
it clear that a declaration qua Chapter VI of said Act (captioned
‘Declaratory Decree’) is binding only on the parties to the suit. In the
case on hand, State/Governmental authorities concerned are not
party/parties to the suit. To be noted, there is no dispute that the sole
appellant filed the suit being Matrimonial(Declaration) Suit No. 7 of
2025 CNR: MNIW05-000312-2025 on the file of the Family Court
Manipur at Lamphelpat Imphal solely for the purpose of claiming
family pension qua her late father, Mr. Huidrom Gyanesor Singh who
was a Government employee/Government servant and who was
working as Superintendent under the Deputy Director of Industries,
Department of Industries, Government of Manipur, retired from
service on 30.06.2010 and died 01.05.2023.
[4] If the sole appellant files a suit seeking declaration
regarding afore-referred subject matter arraying State/instrumentalities
of State/Government authorities concerned qua family pension vide
afore-referred office memorandum and corrigendum thereat, the same
shall be entertained by the jurisdictional Family Court and for this
purpose, we make it clear that such a suit, if filed will not be hit by res-
judicata vide section 11 of the Code Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) as it
would not be ‘suit between the same parties’. However, the suit will bePage 3|5
examined/tried on its own merits and in accordance with law
untrammeled by withdrawal of captioned appeal.
[5] In the light of the narrative thus far and in the light of
endorsement made by learned counsel on record for sole appellant,
captioned appeal is disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit with
preservation of rights and contentions in the aforesaid manner and
observations as above.
[6] There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
John Kom
FR/NFR'
[2] Afore-referred learned counsel on both sides submit that
a similar order may please be made in instant case. In this regard, Mr.
Syed Murtaza Ahmed, learned counsel on record for appellant has
made an endorsement in the case file and scanned reproduction of
the same is as follows:
[3] In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned statutory
appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 is disposed of as
Page 4|5
withdrawn / closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions inthe manner set out in afore-referred 19.02.2026 order more
particularly Paragraph No. 4 thereat. For the sake of specificity, this
Court deems it appropriate to clarify that if the appellant files a suit
afresh, the same shall be entertained by the jurisdictional matrimonial
Court by strictly adhering to Paragraph No. 4 of afore-referred order
dated 19.02.2026 in MAT. APP. No. 6 of 2026 and dispose of the fresh
suit on its own merits and in accordance with law.
[4] Mediation proceedings and the settlement arrived at
therein stand effaced.
[5] Captioned appeal is disposed as closed/withdrawn albeit
with preservation of rights, observations and directives as above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
John Kom
P.S. I : Upload forthwith
P.S. II : All concerned will stand bound by web copy uploaded in High Court
website inter-alia as the same is QR coded.
Page 5|5
