Moirangthem Sunilkumar Singh & Anr. vs Smt. Sambanduram (Ningol) Heikham (Ongbi) Tilotama Devi & Ors.

[1] The following abbreviations/short forms have been used in this order (for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity):

[2] Ten days ago, to be precise on 18-09-2026, said suit on the file of said Trial Court became a thirteen-year-old suit.

[3] The two revision petitioners i.e., revision petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are D1 and D2 in said suit on the file of said Trial Court. The lone respondent in captioned CRP [Ms. Sambanduram (Ningol) Heikham (Ongbi) Tilotama Devi] was the sole plaintiff. To be noted, pending captioned CRP, lone respondent died on 12-08-2025 and her four LRs (husband and three daughters) have been brought on record as R2 to R5. Four LRs have now become four plaintiffs in the said suit in the said Trial Court also as they have come on record in and by an order dated 28-11-2025 made by said Trial Court in Judl. Misc. Case No. 381 of 2025 in said suit. Therefore, the four respondents (R2 to R5) in captioned CRP shall be referred to as plaintiffs and the two revision petitioners shall be referred to as defendants (both for the sake of convenience and clarity). Said suit was instituted in said Trial Court on 18-09-2013 with two declaratory relief prayers — one declaratory relief is for declaration of title qua suit land and another declaratory relief is for declaration of a gift deed (executed by D1 in favour of D2) as not binding on the plaintiffs. To be noted, in the prayer, the gift deed date has not been given, only registration number has been given, it has been given as Registration No. 535 of 2012 but without the details of the Office of the Registrar. However, this Court is informed that it is a gift deed dated 07-07-2012 but this Court expresses no opinion on the same as it would now be for the said Trial Court to go into all these details. As regards suit land for which declaration of title prayer has been made, it has been described as follows:—

To be noted, the afore-referred declaration is as in the copy of the plaint placed before this Court in the case file.

[4] D1 & D2 entered appearance in said suit and on 14-03-2014 they filed a recast written statement with a counter claim. The counter claim is as follows:—

The counter claim is qua properties set out as Schedule “A” & Schedule “B” and the details are as follows:—

[5] Learned counsel for defendants submits that Schedule “B” is part of Schedule “A” but again this Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion as it is for said Trial Court to go into this aspect and this Article 227 Court is of the considered view that said Trial Court should have a free hand to do so. Therefore, this Court is refraining from expressing any view or opinion on this aspect of the matter. When the said suit was merely nine-years-old, D2 executed a gift deed dated 12-08-2022 in favour of her blood brother and on the basis of this 12-08-2022 gift deed, the defendants took out an implead application vide Judl. Misc. Case No. 127 of 2023 which was allowed by the Trial Court in and by an order dated 06-05-2024, plaintiffs came to this Court against this 06-05-2024 order by way of CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 15 of 2025 and the CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 15 of 2025 was allowed by this Court in and by an order dated 13-03-2026 inter alia on the ground that the plea predicated on Section 52 of T.P. Act has been overruled. A scanned reproduction of this order dated 13-03-2026 in CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 15 of 2025 is as follows:

[6] In the interregnum i.e., after executing the gift deed dated 12-08-2022, defendants took out an application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 seeking injunction by resorting to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and in this Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023, the property for which injunction has been sought is as follows:—

[7] The afore-referred injunction application was resisted by the plaintiffs by filing an affidavit-in-opposition dated 30-06-2023 inter alia contending that the property for which injunction has been sought is completely different from the property for which defendants have made a counter claim. The Trial Court, without considering the suit land as described in the plaint, as described in the written statement and as described in Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 has made absolute an order of status quo (to be noted, interim status quo had already been granted and the same was made absolute).

[8] Plaintiffs filed a First Appeal in the First Appellate Court by resorting to Order XLIII Rules 1 (r) of CPC, after full contest, the First Appellate Court in and vide impugned order dated 11-08-2025 allowed the appeal, setting aside the status quo order of the Trial Court by adverting to schedule of suit land as in the plaint, schedule as in the written statement qua counter claim and the schedule in the injunction application taken out by defendants vide Jud. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023. The First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that there can be no land as described in Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 within the scope of said suit as it does not tally either with the schedule as described in the plaint or with the schedule qua counter claim as in the written statement.

[9] It may not be necessary to examine the matter in any further detail as Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel on record for defendants, submits in the hearing today on instructions that the land for which injunction was sought vide Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 is now in possession of plaintiffs and that they have put up superstructure on the same.

[10] As learned counsel for defendants submits in unambiguous terms that the land for which injunction was sought vide Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 is now in the possession of plaintiffs, the question of an injunction in favour of the defendants does not arise. As regards status quo, it would now only mean that the plaintiffs can continue to be in possession but the plaintiffs have not sought any order of interim injunction. On the contrary, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of suit property as described in the plaint from the date of purchase continuously and the property for which injunction has been sought vide Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 is different from the property for which counter claim has been made. In this view of the matter, as an order of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and for that the matter an order of status quo is only to balance the rights of the parties and avoid irreversible legal injury, any legal drill in this direction is of no avail. The reason is, as already alluded to supra, defendants who sought injunction admit that the property for which injunction was sought vide Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023 is in the possession of plaintiffs, who have admittedly put up superstructure thereat.

[11] This Court is of the view that the parties will do well to proceed with the thirteen-year-old suit and conclude the same.

[12] Said Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in said suit and return a verdict subject only to any suit instituted prior to 18-09-2013 pending on its file.

[13] Though obvious, said Trial Court will now decide said suit on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by any observation/s made in the interlocutory order dated 11-08-2023 made by said Trial Court in Judl. Misc. Case No. 116 of 2023, observations made by First Appellate Court in the impugned order dated 11-08-2025 and in instant order, this Court has left open all questions.

[14] As an order of dismissal can be construed as confirmation of the order of First Appellate Court on merits, this Court deems it appropriate to give a closure to captioned CRP by writing that the same is disposed of as closed leaving open all the rights and contentions of both sides for pursuing the same in the legal drill in said suit in said Trial Court. This Court reiterates the direction to said Trial Court to expedite the said suit subject only to pendency of any suit instituted prior to 18-09-2013 pending on its file.

[15] Owing to closure of captioned main CRP in the aforesaid manner, captioned MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) Nos. 38 of 2026 and 40 of 2026 taken out by the plaintiffs with prayers for rejection of captioned CRP have become otiose and the same are given a closure and disposed of as closed. Likewise, owing to closure of captioned main CRP in the aforesaid manner, captioned MC(CRP(CRP Art. 227)) No. 83 of 2025 with a prayer for interim stay of all further proceedings in the said suit in said Trial Court is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.