PEMILISH D. SANGMA Vs. BENSILLA CH. SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Revision Application under Rule 6 of the Meghalaya High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 2014, has been preferred against an order dtd. 11/12/2018, passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court at Tura, in Misc. Appeal No. 7/2017, whereby an order dtd. 14/7/2017, passed by the Judicial Officer Sub-ordinate Court, GHADC in Civil Appeal No. 4/2016, has been set aside.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner who is stated to be the widow of one (L) Prinson D. Sangma, claims to have acquired right, title and interest to the properties held by her husband during his lifetime, on the same having devolved on her deceased husband, on the demise of his parents namely (L) Ginseng Sangma and (L) Kumodini Sangma. Challenge had been made by the respondent to this claim on the ground that the said properties should vest in her, inasmuch as, she is the adopted daughter of (L) Ginseng Sangma and (L) Kumodini Sangma. It appears that thereafter the matter was taken before the Mukdangra Village court by the respondent, which then by order dtd. 10/12/2015, by a brief order decided as follows.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the above noted decision, then preferred an appeal before the Court of the Judicial Officer, Sub-ordinate Court, GHADC at Tura, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2016. In the Memo of Appeal, the petitioner had also taken the ground that Village Court did not allow her to examine her witnesses, to defend her right, title and interest over the said properties, or consider the fact that she possessed periodic pattas for the same, and had been in the exclusive possession for above 25 years. The respondent had then entered appearance and had filed objection to the appeal memo. The Court of Judicial Officer, then by order dtd. 14/7/2017, without entering into the merits of the matter, on the ground that the Title Suit before the Village Court was barred by limitation on a finding that the suit had been instituted after 21 years, as against the legal requirement of 12 years from the date of dispossession, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the respondent.