Takhellangbam Umananda Sharma vs Hajarimayum Priyogapal Sharma

[1] This revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Revenue Tribunal,

Manipur, in Revenue Revision Case No. 34 of 2020. The said revision was filed by respondent No. 1 herein under Section 95 of the Manipur Land

Revenue & Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act of 1960’), assailing the order dated 22.07.2017 passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector,

Imphal West (Central), Manipur, in Revenue Misc. Case Number No. 157 of 2017. A prayer was also made in the said revision to stay the

proceedings of Partition Case No. 553 of 2020, pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West.

[2] By the order dated 04.01.2021, presently under revision, the Tribunal ultimately found that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the

right and title over the Shebaitship of the deities, Shri Jagannath Devatta and Lakshmi Janardana, and the endowed properties, including the homestead

land along with the building standing thereon at Village No. 85-Sagolband, Imhal West Tehsil, and therefore, the Civil Court would be the proper forum

to adjudicate the matter under Section 159 of the Act of 1960. The Tribunal further directed that, in order to prevent multiplicity of litigation between

the parties, the proceedings of Partition Case No. 553 of 2020 pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West, should remain

stayed.

[3] Aggrieved by this order, respondent No. 4 in the revision case before the Tribunal preferred the present revision. Mr. Ng. Somorjit, learned

counsel appearing for him, would contend that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in recording findings on the merits of the matter and in granting

relief though it had already concluded that the Civil Court was the proper forum to undertake adjudication of the dispute. Learned counsel would fairly

state that his client would be satisfied if the parties are relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 159 of the Act of 1960 simpliciter.

[4] Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel on caveat for the contesting respondent No. 1, would fairly state that he has no objection to this limited relief

being granted.

[5] Section 159 of the Act of 1960 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court subject to the exceptions stipulated in the two provisos thereto. The first

proviso states that, if the dispute between the parties involves a question of title, a Civil Suit may be brought for adjudication of such a question. As the

Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the dispute between the parties in the case on hand did involve a question of title and thought it fit to

relegate them to the remedy of a Civil Suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court, there was no cause made out for it to venture any opinion on the merits

of the matter. That apart, when the parties were relegated to the statutory remedy, the Tribunal should have been mindful of the fact that suitable

interim relief would be within the domain of the forum to which the parties had been relegated and ought not to have granted a blanket stay with

regard to the proceedings in the partition case. Such relief should have been limited to a time frame to enable the jurisdictional Civil Court to look into

that aspect of the matter also, if it is raised before it.

[6] On the above analysis, this revision is allowed to the extent of setting aside all the findings on merits recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated

04.01.2021 passed in Revision Case No. 34 of 2020.

[7] The jurisdictional Civil Court shall not be bound or influenced by any such observations in the event a Civil Suit is brought before it under Section

159 of the Act of 1960. Further, the stay already granted in relation to Partition Case No. 553 of 2020 pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer

Lamphel, Imphal West, shall remain operative for a period of 3 (three) weeks only from today to enable the invocation of the appropriate Civil Court

by the aggrieved parties. Needless to state, this limited stay is being granted only for the purpose of maintaining status quo to enable the Civil Court to

exercise its jurisdiction independently. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the grant of this limited stay shall

also not have any influence or binding effect upon the Civil Court.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.