MARINGMEI ACHAM versus M MARINGMET KHURIPOU

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 03-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
MARINGMEI ACHAM
v.
M MARINGMET KHURIPOU
(Civil Appeal No. 8104 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 03, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Abatement of suit – Proper
or not – High Court held that the civil miscellaneous appeal filed
u/Or.XLIII, r.1 of CPC against an order refusing temporary injunction
would no longer have to be proceeded with, as the suit was filed by
the appellant’s late father and no steps were taken to implead his
legal representatives – As a result, the suit filed by the appellant’s
father had abated – Since, the suit from which the appeal arose
abated, nothing further survived – Held: A circumstance to be
noticed is that appellant’s father died during the pendency of appeal
against the refusal to grant interim order – The appellant had filed
application before the Appellate Court seeking to come on record
as his legal representative – Application was allowed – In view of
the fact, that the legal representative was brought on record in an
appeal from an interlocutory order, such impleadment will enure
towards the proceedings itself – The failure to get the appellant
impleaded in the suit itself would not be fatal to the continued
prosecution of the suit – The suit, therefore, must be proceeded with
– Order of the High Court set aside.
Rangubai Kom Shankar Jagtap v. Sunderabai Bhratar
Sakharam Jedhe & Others [AIR 1965 SC 1794] : [1965]
SCR 211 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1965] SCR 211                 relied on
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8104
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2021 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in CRP (CRP Art. 227) No. 29 of 2019.
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 148
148
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
149
Amit Pawan, Anand Nandan, Hassan Zubair Waris, Ms. Shivangi,
Suchit Singh Rawat, Aakarsh, Bharat Singh, Ashish Pandey, Kshitiz Singh,
Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Mahipal Khagnwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
N. Umakanta Singh, N G Junior, Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Advs. for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
1. The impugned order is an order passed in a Civil Revision
Petition. The High Court has found that in view of the fact that the suit,
filed by the appellant’s late father (Maringmei Thaitoungam) who had
died and as no steps had been taken to implead his legal representatives,
had abated, the result of the abatement of the suit filed by the appellant’s
father, it was held, was that the civil miscellaneous appeal filed under
Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure against an order
refusing temporary injunction would no longer have to be proceeded
with.
F A C T S
2. It is the case of the appellant that his father (Maringmei
Thaitoungam) became the headman of a village by name Lamdan Kabui
in the year 1972. It is his further case that the post of Chief (Khullakpa)
of the village Lamdan Kabui is hereditary as per the Rongmei Kabui
Customary Law and as per which on the death of the chief of the village,
the eldest clan member /son becomes the chief. The custom has been in
existence since time immemorial and even notified in the Gazette. It is in
terms of such custom that the appellant’s father became the chief in the
year 1972.
3. The appellant’s father filed Original (Declaratory) Suit No.3 of
2014 on 10.03.2014 contending that he was the chief of village since
1972. His wife had passed away in the year 2013. The respondent herein
claiming that a widower cannot become the chief, had forged certain
proceedings declaring himself to be the chief. It was his further contention
that even if the original plaintiff could not act as a chief, his son can
become the chief. The appellant’s father sought a relief of declaration
of his right as chief (Khullakpa). He further sought a declaration that the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachndpur dated
MARINGMEI ACHAM v. M MARINGMET KHURIPOU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
20.01.2014 by which the respondent was recognised as chief was null
and void and a permanent injunction was also sought for against the
felling of trees.
4. The original plaintiff filed an application seeking injunction under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 again seeking to restrain the respondent from
acting as chief, felling of trees and collecting of house tax. The respondent
filed his written objections. Suffice it to notice that the application seeking
interim injunction was declined by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.