Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

MAT. APP. No. 4 of 2024

Km. Chabungbam Memota Devi, aged about 45 years, D/o

late Ch. Babudhon Singh, a resident of Sagolband Tera

Loukrakpam Leikai, P.O. Imphal and P.S. Lamphel, Imphal

West District, Manipur.

…. Appellant

- Versus -

1. Smt. Chabungbam Ningol Thokchom Ongbi Shyamasakhi

Devi, aged about 70 years, W/o Thokchom Gopeshwor

Singh, a resident of Wangkei Ningthem Pukhri Mapal,

P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal West District, Manipur.

2. Shri Chabungbam Nabachandra Singh, aged about 65

years, S/o Late Ch. Babudhon Singh, Uripok Khoisnam

Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,

Manipur.

3. Shri Chabungbam Budhachandra Singh, aged about 61

years, S/o late Ch. Babudhon Singh, a resident of

Sagolband Tera Loukrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,

Imphal West District, Manipur.

4. Shri Chabungbam Somendro Singh, aged about 54 years,

S/o late Ch. Babudhon Singh, a resident of Sagolband

Tera Loukrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal

West District, Manipur.

5. Shri Chabungbam Priyokumar Singh, aged about …….

Years S/o (late) Ch. Babudhon Singh, a resident of

Sagolband Tera Loukrakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,

Imphal West District, Manipur.

…. Defendants/Respondents

KHOIROM

BIPINCHAN

DRA SINGH

Digitally signed by

KHOIROM

BIPINCHANDRA SINGH

Date: 2024.12.19

12:38:49 +05'30'

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 2

B E F O R E

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI

For the petitioner : Mr. RK. Milan, Advocate

For the respondents : Mr. N. Alex Meitei, Advocate

Date of hearing : 09.12.2024

Date of judgment &

order : 19.12.2024

JUDGEMENT &ORDER

(CAV)

[Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui, J]

[1] Heard Mr. RK. Milan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr. N. Alex Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

[2] The present appeal has been filed on behalf of Km.

Chabungbam Memo Devi with the following prayer:

(i) To admit the appeal.

(ii) To call for the record.

(iii) To set aside the judgment and decree dated

25.09.2024 passed in Mat. (Declaration) Suit No. 6

of 2024 of the Ld. Family Court, Manipur.

(iv) To pass decree declaring that the

plaintiff/appellant is the unmarried daughter of (L)

Chabungbam Babudhon Singh and (L)

Chabungbam Thambal Devi.

(v) To pass decree declaring that the

plaintiff/appellant is entitled to the family pension.

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 3

(vi) To pass any other order/direction or

orders/directions which the Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case for the end of justice.

[3] Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the last

daughter born on 01.04.1979 out of the wedlock of her father namely,

Chabungbam Babudhon Singh. Her father was serving as Chowkidar in

the Education Department, Government of Manipur posted at the office

of the Principal, Government Hindi Teacher Training College, Imphal. He

retired from service on superannuation on 31.09.2002 and died on

10.05.2015 while enjoying his pension. After his death, her mother

namely, Ch. Thambal Devi enjoyed the family pension of her father.

However, after the death of her mother on 12.11.2023 leaving behind

the respondents including herself, since she is unmarried and

unemployed daughter, she approached the concerned authority to get

the family pension on 08.01.2024, as having no means for her

livelihood. As advised by the authority, she filed a Matrimonial

(Declaratory) Suit No. 6 of 2024 before the Ld. Family Court Manipur

with the following prayer:

(i) To pass a decree declaring that the

plaintiff/appellant is the unmarried daughter of

Chabungbam Babudhon Sigh and Chabungbam

Thambal Devi.

(ii) To pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court

deems fit and proper for end of justice.

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 4

The respondents have also filed their written statement

having no objection to the claim of the appellant/plaintiff as the facts

are all correct and true.

[4] In this regard, the plaintiff/appellant produced three

witnesses including herself and it is the finding of the Ld. Trial Court

that the plaintiff/appellant is the unmarried daughter of the deceased.

However, vide order dated 25.09.2024 which is impugned

herein, the Ld. Family Court dismissed the Matrimonial (Declaration)

Suit of the plaintiff/appellant and the operative portions of the said

order are extracted herein below:

“9. The present application has been filed to enjoy the

benefits of family pension which has been extended to

unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter, not covered by

category-I of Para No. 8.4 of the O.M. dated 05.05.2010,

upto the date of marriage/re-marriage or till the date she

starts earning or upto the date of death, whichever is

earlier of the Government Servants who retired or expired

as a pensioner or died/die, while in service as the case

may be, on or after 01.01.2006 as per Notification No.

114 dated 21.05.2011 published in the Manipur Gazette

(Extra Ordinary). However, at para No. 4 of her pleadings,

she stated that her father retired on 31.09.2002 and this

fact of corroborated by Ext. A/3 which shows the date of

retirement as ‘31.03.2002’ and therefore she is not

entitled to family pension as per Notification No. 114

dated 21-05-2011 published in the MANIPUR GAZETTE

(Extraordinary).

10. Hence the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the

present suit.

Reliefs:

11. As the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the

present suit, she is not entitled to any reliefs claimed.

12. Suit is dismissed.

13. Prepare a decree.”

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 5

[5] Mr. RK. Milan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that even if the office memorandum is an issue in the Ld. Trial

Court, the Ld. Trial Court failed to interpret the office memorandum. It

has been admitted fact as well as reflected in the impugned judgment

and decree that the father of the appellant retired on superannuation

on 31.09.2002 and died on 10.05.2015. Since the Ld. Trial Court failed

to interpret the words “expired as a pensioner”, the present matrimonial

appeal has been filed. The aforementioned office memorandum is

extracted herein below:

“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT : FINANCE DEPARTMENT

(PAY IMPLEMENTATION CELL)

……

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Imphal, the 17

th

May, 2011

Subject: Grant of family pension to the

unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter –

clarifications thereof.

No. 9/54/2009-FD(PIC): The undersigned is directed to say

that orders for revision of provisions regulating

pension/gratuity/commutation of pension/family

pension/disability pension of post 01/01/2006

pensioners/family pensioners were issued vide this

Department’s Office Memorandum No. 9/3/2010 -FD(PIC)

dated 05/05/2010. Under para 8.4 Category-II(c) of the above

OM, the benefit of family pension has also been extended to

the unmarried/widowed/divorced/daughter not covered by

Category-I of para 8.4 of the said OM dated 05/05/2010 upto

the date of marriage/re-marriage or till the date she starts

earning or upto the date of death, whichever is earliest of the

Government servants who retired or expired as a pensioner or

died/die while in service, as the case may be, on or after

01/01/2006.

2. In order to facilitate prompt disposal of family pension

claim whenever made by such unmarried/widowed/divorced

daughter covered under Category-II(c) of para 8.4 of the OM

dated 05/05/2010 and to prevent misuse of the benefit, it is

hereby clarified that the Pension Sanctioning Authorities

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 6

should sanction the family pension, for the first payment, only

on production of an Order/Decree passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate of the District concerned to the effect that the

claimant is unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter of the

deceased pensioner/Government servant.

3. It is reiterated that sanction of family pension in such

cases on the basis of papers/documents, such as Affidavits

produced by the claimants and which are non-Government

documents shall not be entertained as notified vide Office

Memorandum No. 8/9/84-PIC dated 26/03/1993 issued in

consultation with Law Department.

4. Claim of such family pension should be submitted by the

Pension Sanctioning Authorities to the Office of the Sr. Deputy

Accountant General (A&E), Manipur through the State Pension

Cell for further consideration.

5. The Pension Sanctioning Authorities shall bear in mind

the above instructions while processing and sanctioning such

family pension.

6. The family pensioner, in such cases, after receipt of the

first payment of the family pension, should produce before the

Treasury Office concerned for every 6 (six) months on 1

st

January and 1

st

July every year a Certificate duly signed by a

Group ‘A’ Gazetted Government Office to the effect that she

(the family pensioner) has not been married or re-married or

earning.

Sd/-

(V.K. Dewangan)

Commissioner (Finance)

Government of Manipur”

“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT : FINANCE DEPARTMENT

(PAY IMPLEMENTATION CELL)

……

CORRIGENDUM

Imphal, the 27

th

June, 2011

Subject: Grant of family pension to the

unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter –

clarifications thereof.

No. 9/54/2009-FD(PIC): Kindly read as “Family Court” in

place of the words “Chief Judicial Magistrate” appearing at

fifth line of para 2 of this Department’s Office Memorandum of

even number dated 17/05/2011.

Sd/-

(A.R. Sharma)

Under Secretary/Finance (PIC)

Government of Manipur”

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 7

“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT : FINANCE DEPARTMENT

(PAY IMPLEMENTATION CELL)

……

OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 16

th

September, 2015

Subject: Grant of family pension to the

unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter of

the State Government

employee/pensioners – clarifications

thereof.

No. 9/54/2009-FD(PIC): The undersigned is directed to

refer to this Department’s Office Memorandum of even

number dated 17/05/2011 and corrigendum dated 27/06/2011

where clarification was given that under Para No. 8.4 Category

– II(c) of the Office Memorandum No. 9/3/201—FD(PIC),

dated 05/-5/2010, the benefit of family pension has also been

extended to the unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter, not

covered by Category-I of Para 8.4 of the said OM dated

05/05/2010, upto the date of marriage/re-marriage or till the

date she starts earning or upto the dated of death, whichever

is earliest, of the Government servants who retired or expired

as a pensioner or died/die while in service, as the case may

be, on or after 01/07/2006.

2. Reference has been received from the Office of the

Accountant General (A&E), Manipur that a good number of

representations are being received from

unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters of Government

servants who either retired/expired prior to 01/01/2006 while

the family pensioners expired on or after 01/01/2006 for grant

of family pension.

3. It is hereby clarified that the benefit of family pension

extended to the unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter under

Category –II(c) of Para 8.4 of the OM No. 9/3/2010-FD(PIC),

dated 05/05/2010 and OM No. 9/54-2009-FD(PIC), dated

17/05/2011 shall be only in respect of State Government

employees who –

(a) retired on or after 01/01/2006

(b) retired and expired as a pensioner on or after

01/01/2006 Or

(c) died while in service on or after 01/01/2006.

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 8

4. Further, it is clarified that such benefit will not be

extended to the unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter of the

Government employees who retired or expired prior to

01/01/2006 even though the pensioner or the family

pensioner, as the case may be, expired on or after

01/01/2006.

Sd/-

(Dr. J. Suresh Babu)

Principal Secretary (Finance)

Government of Manipur.”

[6] Since the judgment and decree was passed on

25.09.2004, certified copy of the same was applied on 27.07.2024 and

delivered to the appellant on 19.10.2024, the present appeal is within

time.

In view of the facts and circumstances and being

aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and decree, the instant case

has been filed on the following grounds:

(i) The Trial Court while passing the impugned

judgment and decree failed to interpret the office

memorandum.

(ii) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that

the office memorandum has never been an issue in

the matrimonial (declaration) suit.

(iii) The Ld. Trial Court had greatly error in coming to the

conclusion that the father of the appellant retired on

31.09.2002 and therefore, his daughter is not

entitled to family pension as the Ld. Trial Court failed

to interpret the meaning of the words “expired as a

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 9

pensioner” as he died on 10.05.2015 much after

01.01.2006 which qualified the appellant for family

pension.

(iv) The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that under

what condition, the appellant has filed the

declaratory suit for declaration of an unmarried

daughter as having no means, living hand to mouth

and also by delaying justice to the appellant will have

serious effect.

[7] On perusal of the pleadings of the appellant/plaintiff, the

relief/prayer sought for in her application was just to declare the

plaintiff/appellant as unmarried daughter of Chabungbam Babudhon

Singh and Chabungbam Thambal Devi. But, on perusal of the dismissal

order of the Ld. Family Court, Manipur, the Ld. Family Court, Manipur

dismissed the application of the plaintiff/appellant on the following

grounds:

“9. The present application has been filed to enjoy the

benefits of family pension which has been extended to

unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter, not covered by

category-I of Para No. 8.4 of the O.M. dated 05.05.2010, upto

the date of marriage/re-marriage or till the date she starts

earning or upto the date of death, whichever is earlier of the

Government Servants who retired or expired as a pensioner or

died/die, while in service as the case may be, on or after

01.01.2006 as per Notification No. 114 dated 21.05.2011

published in the Manipur Gazette (Extra Ordinary). However, at

para No. 4 of her pleadings, she stated that her father retired

on 31.09.2002 and this fact of corroborated by Ext. A/3 which

shows the date of retirement as ‘31.03.2002’ and therefore she

is not entitled to family pension as per Notification No. 114

dated 21-05-2011 published in the MANIPUR GAZETTE

(Extraordinary).

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 10

10. Hence the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the

present suit.

Reliefs:

11. As the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the

present suit, she is not entitled to any reliefs claimed.

12. Suit is dismissed.

13. Prepare a decree.”

It is to clarify that the date of the Office Memorandum as

mentioned in the said judgment and decree should be 17.05.2011 not

21.05.2011.

[8] On careful perusal of the said Office Memorandum dated

17.05.2011, the Ld. Trial Court wrongly quoted that the petitioner is not

entitled to family pension. But, it is to clarify that the contents of the

said memorandum show that the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to the

family pension. Because the last part of the memorandum clearly

mentioned that -

“…………………. Government servants who retired or expired as a

pensioner or died/die while in service as the case may be on or

after 01.01.2006.”

It is admitted position of fact that the father of

plaintiff/appellant retired in the year 2002 and expired in the year 2015.

However, we are not inclined to give any finding in this

regard as this is not an issue at hand.

In the facts and circumstances and observation made

above, we are of the view that the core issue for discussion in the

instant case is as to whether the Trial Court can grant relief which are

not sought for in the pleading.

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 11

On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, the Ld.

Trial Court after examination of 3 (three) PWs and hearing the parties,

after considering the relief sought in the application, made the following

points for determination –

1. Whether the plaintiff is the unmarried daughter of (L)

Chabungbam Babudhon Singh and (late) Chabungbam

Thambal Devi or not?

2. Cause of action?

3. Reliefs.

The Ld. Trial Court at para No. 8 of her judgment passed

the following:

“8. It is case of plaintiff in para Nos. 2 and 3 of her

pleadings that she is unmarried daughter of her deceased

parents and this fact has been deposed by her in her

examination-in-chief as PW-1. PW-2 and PW-3 also corroborate

her pleadings. By preponderance of evidence, plaintiff had

discharged the onus of proof placed on her. Hence, point for

determination No. 1 is decided in four of plaintiff.”

The observation in this para indicates that the Ld. Trial

Court has already granted relief sought for by the plaintiff/appellant.

However, the observation made at para No. 9& 10 of the judgment and

decree, it seems the Ld. Trial Court has traversed beyond pleadings as

the narration and observation made at the said paras are not relief

sought for by the plaintiff/appellant.

Assuming that the plaintiff/appellant included in her

prayer for granting relief for declaring that the plaintiff/appellant is

entitled to the family pension for which ground, the Ld. Trial Court

dismissed the petition, the issue herein cannot be decided by the Ld.

Trial Court without impleading the State Government and Accountant

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 12

General as parties and hearing them as they will be the necessary

parties. Accordingly, we are of the view that the decision made therein

isnot correct.

[9] The issue herein to be decided by this Court is whether

relief not asked for by a party could be granted or not. In this regard,

we are relying on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In

2022 SCC OnLine 928 [Akella Lalitha V. Konda

Hanumantha Rao & Anr.]

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed 3 (three)

issues i.e.

“(a) The appellant i.e. Akella Lalitha would be the natural

guardian of the child, but shall be under obligation to

bring the child to residence of the respondents in such a

way that the child will be with them for a period of 2

days during winter vacation. The respondents shall also

be entitled to see the child in the residence of the

appellants, with prior intimation.

(b) The appellant shall complete the formalities for

restoration of the surname and father’s surname of the

child within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order; and

(c) So far as the name of the father of the child is

concerned, it is directed that wherever the records

permit, the name of the natural father shall be shown

and if it is otherwise impermissible, the name of Ravi

Narasimha Sarma, shall be mentioned as step-father.”

In the present case, we are concerned with the finding of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court for issue No. (c) as mentioned above. In

this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No. 16, 17 & 18

observed that –

“16. Coming to address the second issue, while this Court is

not apathetic to the predicament of the respondent

grandparents, it is a fact that absolutely no relief was ever

sought by them for the change of surname of the child to that

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 13

of first husband/son of respondents. It is settled law that relief

not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court

considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was

made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or

resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

17. In the case of Trojan & Co. Ltd. V. Rm. N.N. Nagappa

Chettiar, this Court considered the issue as to whether relief not

asked for by a party could be granted and that too without

having proper pleadings. The Court held as under:

“It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be

based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties

and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without

an amendment of the plaint, the Court was not entitled

to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever

made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an

alternative case.”

18. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan

Samadkha Sindhi held:

“Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting

relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping

aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief,

grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.”

[10] Again, we are relying on

(2010) 11 SCC 557 [Manohar

Lal (Dead) by LRs. V. Urgasen (Dead) by LRs. &Ors.]

. In this case, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court framed 3 (three) issues; they are namely –

“(a) As to whether the State Government, a revisional

authority under the statute, could take upon itself the

task of a lower statutory authority?

(b) Whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory

authority in contravention of the interim order of the

Court is enforceable? and

(c) Whether the Court can grant relief which had not been

asked for?”

[11] The Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to the issue No. (c) in

para Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 & 34 observed as thus-

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 14

“30. In Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar this Court

considered the issue as to whether relief not asked for by a

party could be granted and that too without having proper

pleadings. The Court held as under : (AIR p. 240, para 22)

“22. ……. It is well settled that the decision of a case

cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the

parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found.

Without an amendment of the plain, the court was not

entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer

was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate

in it an alternative case.”

31. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in

Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow and Om Prakash

v. Ram Kumar observing that a party cannot be granted a relief

which is not claimed.

32. Dealing with the same issue, this Court in Bharat

Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkha Sindhi held : (SCC p.

246, para 30)

“30. …… Though the court has very wide discretion in

granting relief, the court, however, cannot, ignoring and

keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant

of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the

petitioner.”

33. In Fertilizer Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. Sarat

Chandra Rath this Court held that “the High Court ought

not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which

they had not even prayed for.”

34. In view of the above, law on the issue can be

summarized that the court cannot grant a relief which has not

been specifically prayed by the parties. The instant case

requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid certain

legal propositions.”

[12] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case

and for reasons and findings given herein above and the ratio laid down

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cases, we are of the considered

view that the instant case is squarely covered by the observation and

finding made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Mat. App. No. 4 of 2024 Page 15

[13] Accordingly, the judgment and decree made by the Ld.

Trial Court made at para No. 9 to 13 are set aside and the observation

made at para No. 8 is upheld and accordingly declared that “

the

plaintiff is the unmarried daughter of late Chabungbam Babudhon

Singh and Chabungbam Thambal Devi ”

.

As regards, the prayer No. V made in the present

matrimonial appeal i.e.

“to pass decree declaring that the

plaintiff/appellant is entitled to the family pension.”

, we are not

inclined to make any observation in this regard as this is not an issue in

the present appeal.

[14] With the above observation and finding, the present

appeal stands allowed in part. The parties are directed to bear their

own cost and expenses incurred in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Bipin