AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.G. Momin, learned counsel for the respondent.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner and the Respondent are both members of Garo Scheduled Tribe of Meghalaya. The
Respondent Smti. Rahela Marak deserted the household of the Petitioner (Nokdang) and yet was laying her claim on the plot of land
measuring an area of 6 Bighas, 4 Katha, 10 Lecha , situated at Pagugri, Edenbari, West Garo Hills District, Tura, Meghalaya. The
said plot of land belonged to Chambugong Clan and the Respondent had no claim over the same as per the Garo Customs and
usages.
The Petitioner therefore in order to defend his right over the plot of land had filed case before the Village Court of Chidikgre, under
whose Jurisdiction the disputed land was situated. The Chidikgre village court has Jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as per the
Customs and Practice of the garo and vide order dated 12.09.2014 and 18.09.2015 decided the case in favour of the Petitioner in
MC No. 11 of 2014.
Being aggrieved by the said Order of the Village Court, the Respondent filed before the Judicial Officer Subordinate District Council
Court, Tura, who too vide Order dated 18.09.2015 upheld the Order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Village Court. Being
aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the Judge District Council Court, Tura who vide Order dated
02.06.2016 set aside the said Orders dated 12.09.2014 and 18.09.2015 passed by the Village Court.
The case of the Petitioner is that in passing the impugned Order dated 02.06.2016 by the Learned Additional Judge, District Court,
Tura travelled beyond law in appreciating the social customs and as such the same is deserved to be set aside and quashed and hence
this Petition"".
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while deciding the Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2015 the learned Court below has not framed the
issues nor discussed the evidence and disposed of the matter in a whimsical manner.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent could not break down the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Therefore, after giving my anxious thought, I feel that this is a fit case which needs to be remand back for a fresh trial. Accordingly, the
impugned order dated 02.06.2016 in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 2015 is hereby set aside. However, in the meantime, both the parties are directed
to maintain their possession as on today and not to alter the characteristics of the suit premises, till regular stay petition is moved before the learned
trial Court.
The Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment and order.
With this observation and direction the Civil Revision Petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.