The court emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities in the application of the Limitation Act for appeals from Customary Courts.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

Heard Mr. Duge Soki, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. Domo Boje, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal are:

"1) Whether the Limitation Act is applicable in its letter and spirit in filing the appeal from the Customary Court to the Appellate Court, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021.

2) Whether the amended provisions of Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act , 2021 has an application in the present case."

3. The aforementioned substantial questions of law were formulated as it was observed vide order dated 01.05.2023 by this Court that the issues involved in this appeal are purely on questions of law.

4. The order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Basar in case no. BSR/IA-09/22 in BSR/CA-08/22 is under challenge in this appeal. Sri. Nyato Dabu Mengnia is the appellant in this case whereas, Sri. Gyodik Pute Tikli, Shri. Taba Pigia Badi and Shri. Tasar Siyorbe Badi are the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The appellant is the plaintiff of the original Title Suit No. 01/2021 and the respondents are the defendants.

5. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant is the owner of the ancestral property referred to as Mindi Modi and this property, within the vicinity of Mindi Modi belongs to the Mengnia Clan and is a community land. As the community property is a vast area, the Mengnia Clan endorsed the son-in-law late Gioji Pigia and late Badi Siyorbe (father of respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively) to take care of the area during their lifetime. There was no dispute relating to the property during the lifetime of father-in-law of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 but undue advantage was taken by the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

6. Some time in the year, 2000, some disputes arose regarding illegal cane business, allegedly carried out from the land of the appellant. A Kebang was held to settle the issue and cutting of cane was prohibited. However, in a clandestine manner, the Kebang divided the ancestral property of the appellant in favour of the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents started claiming ownership of the disputed land and then, the appellant learnt that the Kebang divided land between the appellants and the respondents on 06.05.2000 as the chairman of the Kebang acted in a partisan manner because he was related to the respondents.

7. Appellant lodged a complaint with the Circle Officer on 19.08.2021, and the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Giba issued an order vide No. GB/DEV-32/2010-11 dated 26.08.2021, directing to conduct a Kebang on 11.09.2021. The Kebang was rescheduled to be held on 28.09.2021, and it was observed that the respondents had proposed settlement of the dispute in such a manner which was not acceptable to the appellant and his family/clan members. The appellant and his family members did not participate in the Kebang. The appellant and his clan members submitted a representation to the Circle Officer, GIBA ventilating their grievance over the Kebang but the irony is that the appellant and his clan members being laymen did not draft the representation in a proper manner. There was no response from the Office of the Circle Officer and the appellant and his clan members did not receive any order from the Kebang. The appellant then brough