U. MITIAN MATANG Vs. KA JESI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Second Miscellaneous Appeal under Rule 26 of the Khasi Stales (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 from an appellate order of the learned Deputy Commissioned K. and J. Hills, who reversed the decision of the Durbar of the Siem of Mylliem which had in its turn reversed the decision of the elders of Bhoilasa who had decreed the suit of one Ka Jesi.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to consider the points raised before us, it is necessary to reproduce the geneological table which is as follows :

(3.) MR . Gupta next argued that assuming an appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner, K. and J. Hills against an appellate order of the Durbar of Siem is competent under Rule 26, it is incompetent under the same rule if the case involves a question of customary law. We asked Mr. Gupta to point out how a question of customary law arises in this case. He was unable to do so. Mr. Gupta concedes that the principle of inheritance is not in dispute. It is conceded that if the property originally belonged to Ka Jatri, the rightful owner of the property on succession will be Ka Sbab but that if the property originally belonged to Ka Sajai, the rightful owner on succession will be U Mitian. In other words, the question of customary law as to inheritance is not in issue. The courts below have not decided any question of customary law. They have come to varying conclusions as to the original ownership of the property. The trial court held that the property belonged to Ka Jatri, the first appellate court held that it belonged to Ka Sajai, the Deputy Commissioner held that it belonged to Ka Jatri.