Sh. K. Vanlalrinnunga Vs Smt. Lalduhzuali Khiangte — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sh. K. Vanlalrinnunga Vs Smt. Lalduhzuali Khiangte — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted and LCR called for; interim direction that the respondent shall not alienate the property till the disposal of the instant appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2024 in Declaratory Suit No. 10/2020, declaring the respondent the legal heiress of late K.T. Dawla in respect of LSC No. Azl. 1022/1985 and the building thereon, should be set aside on the appellant's claim that he, as the deceased's only son, has a better claim and right than the respondent, the grand-daughter.

Ratio / Principle

The regular first appeal is admitted and the Lower Court Record (LCR) is called for.

Key takeaways

Formal notice to the respondent is dispensed with, since learned counsel for the sole respondent accepted notice.ratio¶26
The appellant is directed to furnish requisite copies of the Memo of Appeal to the respondent's counsel, if not already done.ratio¶26
The matter is to be listed again on receipt of the LCR.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo), order dated 20.01.2025 in RFA/29/2024: Regular First Appeal admitted against the Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2024 and the Decree of the same date passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 10/2020, whereby the respondent, Smt. Lalduhzuali Khiangte, was declared the legal heiress of late Sh. K.T Dawla in respect of LSC No. Azl. 1022/1985 and the building standing thereon at Bethlehem Vengthlang, Aizawl. The appellant, claiming to be the only son of the deceased (the respondent being a grand-daughter), contends he has a better claim and right over the property. Notice was completed through Mr. T Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondent, so no formal notice was required; the Lower Court Record was called for; the appellant was directed to furnish copies of the Memo of Appeal; the matter is to be relisted on receipt of the LCR; and, pending disposal of the appeal, the respondent is directed in interim not to alienate the property.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC030005272024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : RFA/29/2024

Sh. K. Vanlalrinnunga S/o K.T. Dawla (L) R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang, Aizawl, Mizoram

VERSUS

Smt. Lalduhzuali Khiangte D/o K. Hmingdailova R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang, Aizawl, Mizoram

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/133/2024

Sh. K. Vanlalrinnunga S/o K.T. Dawla (L) R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang

Aizawl Mizoram

VERSUS

Smt. Lalduhzuali Khiangte D/o K. Hmingdailova

Page No.# 2/3

R/o Bethlehem Vengthlang

Aizawl Mizoram

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER

20.01.2025

With the appearance of Mr. T Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the sole respondent, notice is complete. Mr. B Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be admitted and the LCR may be called. He submits that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2024 and the Decree drawn on the same date by this Court of Civil Judge, Senior DivisionII, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 10/2020 declaring the respondent to be legal heiress of Sh. K.T Dawla (L) in respect of the LSC No. Azl. 1022/1985 and the building standing thereon located at Bethlehem Vengthlang, Aizawl should be set aside in view of the fact that the appellant is the only son of late K.T Dawla, whereas the respondent is the grand-daughter. The learned counsel submits that the appellant has a better claim and right over

the property in question and therefore, the impugned Judgment & Order and

Page No.# 3/3

the Decree should be set aside.

In view of above, let the appeal be admitted. Call for the LCR. Issue notice to the respondent. Since Mr. T Lalnunsiama, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent. No formal notice is required. The appellant shall furnish requisite copies of the Memo of Appeal to Mr. T Lalnunsiama, learned counsel, if not already done.

List the matter again on receipt of the LCR. Having regard to the projection made by the appellant, it is hereby directed in interim that the respondent shall not alienate the property till the disposal of the instant appeal.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant