A declaration of title based on customary law and tribal rights is not subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which applies to common law rights.

This defendants second appeal is from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Manipur dismissing the appeal and upholding the trial Courts judgment decreeing the suit.

2. The present respondent, Shri Onhen Kuki, Chief of Chalva Village, instituted Original Suit No. 7 of 1971 impleading the present appellants Shri Chitui Naga, Gangbura of Tamah village stating that the plaintiffs village as well as the defendants village are old villages and there was and still now exists boundary line called Govakom alias Sonobuh nullah which is also called Charenggiu by the Nagas and that the scheduled land belonged to his villagers and the defendant illegally and without authority prevented his villagers from cutting fire-wood and threatened them claiming the land to have belonged to the defendants village, Tamah; with a prayer for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the land as given in the schedule to the plaint; and for any other relief/reliefs as the Court deems proper.

3. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaintiffs averments and claimed the land to have belonged to his village, a fact which, according to him, was earlier decided in Civil Case No. 7 of 1930-31 of the Court of the S.D.O., Tamenolong, which was between Samthingng Khullakpa of Tamah village as plaintiff and Manglen Chief of Chalva as defendant, deciding that Charenggiu was the original boundary between the two villages.

4. Amongst others, the following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings:

"(4) Whether Charenggiu Nallah is the same as Govakom alias Sonobuh Nallah?

(5) Whether the plaintiff has any right or title over the suit land ?

(6) Is the suit land in possession of the plaintiff?

(7) Does the suit suffer from defect of parties?

(8) Is the suit hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

(9) Is the suit maintainable in the present form?

(10) Is the plaintiff entitled to the Relief as claimed?"

5. At the trial the plaintiff examined eight witnesses including himself as P. W. 8 and proved one exhibit. Ext. A/1 the order dated 15-6-1930 in Civil Case No. 7/30-31, while the defendant examined five witnesses including himself as D. W. 5.

6. The second Subordinate Judge, Manipur, who tried the suit, found that the plaintiff is the Chief of Chalva village; that Govakom and Charenggiu are the same stream, the Kukis calling it Govakom and the Nagas Charenggiu, and the land to the north of it thus included in Chalva village; that Boljang and Govaliphai are the village machet within the suit land; that the plaintiff and his villagers have been possessing and enjoying the suit land since before, that suit is not hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act; and that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him. The suit has accordingly been decreed.

7. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1971 in the Court of the District Judge, Manipur which took up Issues Nos. (7), (8) and (9), which the trial Court observed not to have been pressed and by impugned judgment and order held that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit is not hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act; that both the words Charenggiu and Govakom convey the same meaning and thus Govakom formed the southern boundary of Chalva village and the villagers thereof possessed the suit land and accordingly the appeal has been dismissed with costs. Hence this second appeal.

8. Mr. A. Nilmani Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, urges, inter alia, (i) that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; (ii) that the suit is hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act; and (iii) that the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse, and, as such, liable to be set aside in this second appeal.

9. Mr. T. Bhuban Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent, counters submitting that the dispute in the suit being about the boundaries between the plaintiffs vi