IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Shri. Amos Dkhar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shri. Donush Siangshai & Ors. - Respondents
MA(S) No. 1 of 2024 with MA(S) No. 2 of 2024
Decided On : 20-05-2024
Jurisdiction - Civil Suits - Sixth Schedule, Constitution of India - Paragraph 4, Administration of Justice Rules 1953 - The court interpreted the jurisdictional limits of District Council Courts concerning tribal disputes, emphasizing that jurisdiction is confined to parties belonging to the same district council.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed two suits against the appellants, which were dismissed by the Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent appealed, and the District Council Court allowed the appeals, leading to the current challenge by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Council Courts had jurisdiction to try the suits as both parties resided within the jurisdiction of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, despite their tribal affiliations.
Issues: Whether the District Council Courts at Shillong had jurisdiction to try the suits given that both parties belonged to different districts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that jurisdiction is determined by the residence of the parties and the location of the property, affirming that the District Council Courts could adjudicate the matter as both parties resided within its jurisdiction.
Result: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the District Council Courts.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Thangkhiew, J. - The instant appeals involving similar facts and a common question of law, for the sake of convenience are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The brief facts leading upto the present miscellaneous appeals are that the Respondent as Plaintiff had instituted two suits against the appellants herein, being T.S. No. 52 of 2017 and T.S. No. 53 of 2017 (since renumbered) in 2015. The appellants during the pendency of the suits had filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.02.2022, rejected the plaints of the Respondent/Plaintiff, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. This Court at that point of time, was then approached by the respondent by way of a Revision Application being CRP No. 7 of 2022, which was disposed of by order dated 06.06.2022, with a liberty given to the respondent herein, to file an appeal before the Judge, District Council Court. The respondent then preferred two miscellaneous appeals being MCA No. 10 and 11 respectively of 2022, before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, who then by order dated 09.05.2023, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 11.02.2022. Against this order dated 09.05.2023, the appellants are now before this Court.
3. Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Judge, District Council Court had erred in law, in going against the law declared by the Supreme Court by holding that the Sub-ordinate District Council Courts, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, possessed jurisdiction to try the suits even though both the plaintiff and defendants belong to different districts, notwithstanding the fact that, the property was situated within the jurisdiction of the KHADC. The case of Kyntiew Akor Suchiang vs. Woston Hynniewta Anr. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 488, has been cited to advance his contention that in the interpretation of Para - 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has held that a District Council Court constituted for the purpose of deciding disputes, has jurisdiction in respect of tribals who belong to the Scheduled Tribe, within such area for which the District Council is constituted and would have no jurisdiction, where one of the parties belong to another area, which is under the jurisdiction of another District Council. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that in the said judgment, it has also been held that the Khasi Hills District Council Court, would have no jurisdiction to determine the dispute, which was between the wife, who belongs to a tribe of Jaintia Hills and the husband, who belonged to East Khasi Hills. He asserts that in this decision, Kyntiew Akor Suchiang (supra), the Supreme Court had laid stress on the word 'belongs' and as such, even if a person resides within the jurisdiction of the KHADC, but belongs to another tribe of a different district, the said District Council would have no jurisdiction to try the suit.
4. The learned Senior counsel then submits that, the Lower Appellate Court has erred in law in relying upon Section 16 of the CPC, inasmuch as, the said provision of law begins with 'subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by law... shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property situated'. This he contends has limited the application of Section 16, due to the existence of Paragraph-4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The issue he submits is no longer 'res integra' as this Court is bound to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, and the fact that the suit property is situated in Shillong, will not confer jurisdiction upon the District Council Courts at Shillong, once it is establish
Jurisdiction of District Council Courts is limited to parties belonging to the same district council, as per the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
Any case which at any stage after the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant to him has taken cognizance of, transpires to be so triable shall have to be transferred to the competent court of the District ....
Inevitably leads to conclusion that all such criminal cases are triable by courts constituted under Para 4 of Schedule VI, irrespective of fact that de jure complainant is State, as long as both accu....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of jurisdiction based on the location of the suit property and the applicability of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Admin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of the Judge, District Council Court to exercise original jurisdiction in the trial of a Title Suit as provided by the Rules of 1953....
The Fast Track Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case, rendering its proceedings invalid; the District Council Court's reliance on those proceedings constituted a jurisdictional error.
A Title Suit filed without jurisdiction cannot lead to valid execution; the doctrine of lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers to existing litigation outcomes.
A State Legislature cannot confer jurisdiction on courts outside its territory, reaffirming that laws made by a State are confined within its territorial limits, as per Articles 245 and 246 of the Co....
Rejection of Plaint - Without taking formal judicial cognizance of the same, it is expected that District Authorities as also Executive Committee, GHADC take all steps necessary to ensure that functi....
The court ruled that the learned District Judge exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside a village authority's decision and allowing a fresh plaint, which constituted a new suit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.