The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to the state of Nagaland and the absence of a specific period of limitation under the Naga Hills Jhumland Regulation, 1946 for bringing civil action.

( 1 ) THE appellants herein are the residents of village Dibui in the state of Nagaland. They claimed themselves to be owners of suit land having title which was declared by a Tribal council by a judgment and order dated 16. 1. 1953. It was alleged that the defendants have encroached upon their land and cultivated the said land despite the objection raised by the appellants. Subsequently, the defendants started erecting huts and under such circumstances the appellants brought a suit for declaration of their rights to the land in dispute and recovery of possession from the defendants, who are the residents of village Waranmung represented by Shri Temjenwati and others. The defendants contested the suit and contended that they have a title to the land and, therefore, they are in lawful possession of the land in question. Initially, the trial court decreed the suit. However, on appeal by the respondents, the decree of the trial court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh. On remand, the trial court dismissed the suit and one of the grounds on which the suit was dismissed was that the suit was barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the plaintiff respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by a reasoned judgment dismissed the appeal. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants, inter alia, urged that, the indian Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the state of Nagaland and, therefore, the suit could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation, that the suit filed by the appellants was required to be decided in terms of section 3 of the Naga Hills Jhumland Regulation, 1946 and in that event the suit filed by the appellants herein was well within limitation and that, section 30 of the limitation Act, 1963 was not attracted in the present case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contested the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

( 3 ) COMING to the first question, it was urged that in view of Article 371-A of the constitution of India, the Act of parliament cannot be extended to the state of Nagaland if it related to administration of civil and criminal justice involving Naga customary law unless legislative assembly of Nagaland by resolution resolves to extend the same and since the legislative assembly of nagaland has not passed any resolution for extending the Limitation Act, 1963 to nagaland, the said Act is not applicable to the state of Nagaland.

( 4 ) ARTICLE 371-A of the Constitution of india provided thus :"371-A. Special provision with respect to the state of Nagaland (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution: (a) no act of parliament, in respect of (i) religious or social practices of the nagas, (ii) Naga customary law and procedure, (iii) Administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to naga customary law. (iv) Ownership and transfer of land and it resources shall apply to the state of Nagaland unless the legislative assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides; (b)- (d ). . . . . . . . . . "

( 5 ) LIMITATION Act 1963 is based on a public policy. It only limits the time after which the suit or other proceedings cannot be maintained in a court of justice. In other words, the right of a party cannot be enforced through a court of law after the period of limitation provided in the act expires. The Limitation Act has been made applicable to administration of civil justice which does not involve decision according to Naga customary law. In other words justice is not required to render decision according to Naga customary law. Moreover, the customary law of Nagaland does not provide for any period of limitation for administration of civil action has to be brought within the period of limitation, as provided under indian Limitation Act, 1963.

( 6 ) IT was then urged that since section 3 of