AMOS DKHAR Vs. DONUSH SIANGSHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 dtd. 11/2/2022, 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 dtd. 6/6/2022, 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 dtd. 9/5/2023, allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Trial Court dtd. 11/2/2022. Against this order dtd. 9/5/2023, 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 and 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.