IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE SR.

DIVISION, IMPHAL EAST

Original suit No. of 2022

1. Shri Okram Khamba Singh, aged about ……….

years.
2. Shri Okram Ibobi Singh, aged about ………. years.
3. Shri Okram Ningol Ibemma Devi, aged about …….
Years.
4. Shri Okram Iboton Singh, aged about …… years.
5. Shri Okram Ningol Ibeton Devi, aged about ……..
years.
6. Shri Okram Ningol Medha Devi, aged about ………
years.
7. Shri Okram Joy singh, aged about ……….. years.

All are residence of Thoubal Athokpam Leikai, P.O, P.S

Thoubal District, Manipur.

…Plaintiffs

-Versus-

1. Shri Okram Henery Singh, aged about …….. years.

S/o late Okram Lukhoi Singh of Mantripukri, Manipur at
present, Khurai Soibam Leikai, near Babina Diagnostic
Centre, Imphal, P.O & P.S Porompat and District, Imphal
East, Manipur.
2. Shri Suresh Kumar Jain, aged about 58 years S/o
Nirmal Kumar Jain, by occupation Business, Thangal Bazar
P.O & P.S City and District, Imphal West Manipur.
…Principal Defendant
3. Smt. Okram Ongbi Gunileima Devi, aged about 53
years W/o Late Okram Lukhoi Singh of Mantripukri, P.O
Mantripukri, P.S Heingang and District, Imphal East,
Manipur.

Contd…2/-
 -2-

4.Shri Okram Raman Singh, aged about ……… years S/o

Late Okram Lukhoi Singh of Mantripukri P.O. Mantripukri,
P.S. Heingang and District, Imphal East, Manipur.
…Principal Defendant

A declaration suit with consequential

relief(s) and partitions of share and recovery
of Khas possessions under section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with section
54 and/or order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.

Suit is ruled at Rs ……….. for the purpose of

Pecuniary Jurisdictions.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1. That, the plaintiff and Late Okram Lukhoi Singh of Mantripukri,

Manipur were the sons and daughters of Okram Agoubi Singh ( now deceased)
S/o Late Surjamani Singh of Thoubal Athokpam, Manipur. The said Okram
Agoubi Singh was also resided at Mantripukri, Manipur.
2. That, the said Okram Angoubi Singh was the recorded pattadar and
owner in the possesions of the land under:-
1. Patta no.6/62(old)/145/285 covered by C.S dag no.16 measuring
an area of 0. ……….. acres, situated at village no.6, Kontha Ahallup, which is
more particulary described in the schedule A below.
2. The paddy field under patta no.6/157/494 covered by C.S Dag no.
41/651 measuring an area of 0.60 acres, situated at the village no.6, Kontha
Ahallup, which is more particularly described in the Schedule B below.
3. The homestead under patta no.6/232(old)/70(new) covered Dag
no.15 measuring an area of 0.42 acres, situated at village no.6, Kontha Ahallup
which is more particularly described in the Schedule C below.
Contd…3/-
 -3-

The said 3 (three) patta lands i,e. Schedule A,B and C are the suit lands.

3. That, the said Okram Angoubi Singh died on ……….. intestate the suit
lands and leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

4. That, though, the name of the plaintiff was recorded in the relevant land
record of the Schedule B land and that the name of the defendant was also
recorded in the relevant land record of the Schedule A land.

5. That, the said Late Okram Lukhoi Singh died on …….. and he was
survived by his wife and 2(two) sons, The Principal defendant no.1 and Pro-
defendant no.4 are the sons and the Pro-defendant no.3 is his wife.

6. That, during the life of the said Okram Angoubi Singh, has never
transferred the suit lands to anybody and such the suit lands were devolved to
his said legal heirs in equal share. But the share of the Late Okram Lukhoi
Singh was devolved to his legal heirs which i,e Principal defendant and the Pro-
defendant 3 and 1.

7. That, very surprisingly, on 23/11/2022 the Pro-defendant no.3 informed

to the plaintiffs that the Principal defendant no.2 through his agents came to the
Schedule land and claimed that the said land belongs to him as he purchased it
from the defendant no.1 and also attempted to block the gate located in the
northern portion of the said Schedule C land. The pro-defendant no.3 also
informed about the existence of the original Suit no.76 of 2022 of the Hon’ble
court, filed by her against the defendant no.2.

8. That, on receiving the said information from the Pro-defendant no.3, the
plaintiffs trough their Ld. Counsels met and enquiry about the status of the land
records of the said land and on such enquiry, it is found that the name of the
defendant no.1 was found recorded in the relevant land record of the suit lands
vide muth. Case no. 295 /SDC/2005 of the Ld. Court of S.D.C, Heingang and
the defendant no.1 without authority transferred :-
 Contd…4/-

-4-

1. The suit land A i.e. patta no. 157/494 covered by dag no. 41/651 to
defendant no.1 measuring 0.60 acres, situated at village no.16 and
another agricultural land under patta no. 146/285 covered by dag
no.16 measuring an area of 0.14 acres under a regd. Sale Deed being
no. 1991(v) of 2008 of the Sub-registrar, Porompat.
2. The suit land B i.e. patta no. 232(old)/70(new) covered buy C.S Dag
no.15 measuring an area of 0.42 acres of the defendant no.2 under a
Regd. Sale Deed being no. 2347(V) of 2018 of the Sub-Registra,
Porompat.

-5-

9. That the suit is valued at Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and
ad-valorem court fees of Rs. ……..………. is paid in stamps under the Section
7 IV (C) of the Court Fees Act.
10.That the plaintiff claim the following relief (s):-
(i) a decree for giving direction to the defendant No. 1 & 2 to find
out those houses lying within the Leisan Village and/or
BungpaKhullen Village by causing demarcation by erection of
pillars upon the boundary of Leisan Village and BungpaKhullen
Village within Kamjong Sub-Divisoin, Ukhrul District, Manipur.
(ii) a decree declaring that the 410 Houses out of 423 houses
mentioned in the order dated 27-07-2012 of the SDO/Kamjong
regarding the Hill House Taxesare the houses located within the
Leishan Village.
(iii) a decree declaring that the defendant is not title to collect the Hill
House Tax of the said 410Houses.
(iv) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
collecting Hill House Taxes of the said 410 Houses of the Leishan
Village.
(v) a decree declaring that the defendant has no right to do any act
relating the said 410 houses including the scheme MGNREGS
etc..
(vi) Any other relief (s) which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper,
for the ends of justice.
Dated/Imphal Signature of the plaintiffs
The June, 2014

By:
Advocate

-6-

SCHEDULE OF THE LAND

The schedule of the land namely, “Hungparang/Keisan” situated at

Kamjong Block, Ukhrul District, Manipur is given below:-
 On THE NORTH: the 31st Miles marking of PWD Road pasing through
the suit land and going towards Imphal;

ON THE SOUTH: Half a mile from the 33rd Miles marking of PWD
Road passing through the suit land and going towards BungpaKhullen and
Grihang;

ON THE EAST: The boundary of PhangeTangkhul Village about 3

Miles from the Old Government Parao (PWD Inspection Bungalow); and

ON THE WEST: The boundary of BungpaKhullen Village and about

2 Miles from the Old Government Parao (PWD Inspection Bungalow);

VERIFICATION

Verified that the statement made in paragraph No. 1 to 8 are all true to the best
of my knowledge and nothing false has been stated and those statement made
in paragraph No. 9, 10 & 11 are the legal information received from my
counsel which I verily believe to be true and correct. Sign this verification on
this 11thday of June, 2014 at Imphal.
Declarant
By:
Advocate

AFFIDAVIT
 I, Smt. LeadaHungyo, aged about 67 years, D/o. Late
InchishungTangkhul of Leisam Village, P.O. & P.S. Kamjong, Ukhrul District,
Manipur at present Singjamei Bazar Parking, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal
West District, Manipur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1. That I am the plaintiff No. 1 and as such I am fully acquainted with the
facts of the case and competent to swear this affidavit for myself and on behalf
of other plaintiffs. This is true to the best of my knowledge.

2. That the statement made in paragraph No. 1 to 8 are all true to the best of
my knowledge and nothing false has been stated and those statement made in
paragraph No. 9, 10 & 11 are the legal information received from my counsel
which I verily believe to be true and correct.

VERIFICATION

Verified that the statements made in paragraph No. 1 & 2 of the affidavit
are all true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing false has been
concealed therein. Sign on this 11thday of June, 2014 at Imphal.

Deponent
By:
Advocate