[1] Captioned main Civil Revision Petition (CRP) has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing an order dated 06.05.2024 made
in Judl. Misc. Case No. 127 of 2023 in Original Suit No. 18 of 2013 on the file of
the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thoubal. This ‘06.05.2024 order’ shall be
referred to as ‘impugned order’ for convenience. ‘Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Thoubal’ shall be referred to as ‘Trial Court’, also for the sake of
convenience. To be noted, this Court is informed at the Bar by learned counsel on
both sides that Original Suit No. 18 of 2013 has been renumbered and it is now
Original Suit No. 20 of 2014 but on the file of the same Trial Court.
[2] ‘Original Suit No. 18 of 2013’ which is now ‘Original Suit No. 20 of
2014’ shall be referred to as ‘said suit’ for the sake of clarity. Plaint in the said suit
is dated 18.09.2013 and the prayers are for declaration of title qua suit land,
declaration that western boundary in a gift deed (to be noted, this is a registered
gift deed bearing Regd. No. 535 of 2012 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Thoubal,
Manipur) is wrong and a further relief that this gift deed is not binding on the
plaintiff. To be noted, suit land is situate in Village No. 133 Wangjing, Khongjom,
Tehsil – Thoubal District, Manipur in C.S. Dag Nos. 5005/5167 and 5006/5168.
Suit land, according to the plaint admeasures an extent of .0279 hectares. This
gift deed which is sought to be declared as not binding on the plaintiff shall be
referred to as 1st Gift Deed as there is one more gift deed about which there will
be allusion elsewhere infra in this order. As regards this 1st Gift Deed, 1st defendant
in the suit is donor and 2nd defendant in the suit is donee.
[3] Owing to the limited legal perimeter within which captioned CRP has
to perambulate, it is not necessary to be detained further by facts. To put it
differently, considering the scope of captioned CRP, essential facts that are
imperative for appreciating instant order have been set out supra and therefore,
this Court refrains from dilating further on facts.