Singdon Marak vs Nonel Mechik

Thadani, C.J.—This is an application under Rule 35 of the Rules framed for the Administration of Justice in the Garo Hills District, directed against an appellate order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Garo Hills District, dated 1-11-51, by which he modified the list of the properties which had been attached by the learned E.A.C., while maintaining the order of attachment. On 27-6-51, the learned E.A.C., Mr. U.N. Sarma passed the following order:

Heard both parties Singdon the father admits that he took the properties mentioned in the petition except cash, but he says that while running the cases over land, he sold every-thing except his utensils. As under the customary law, he is bound to return the properties to the Petitioner, Laskar to attach the properties as shown by the Petitioner and return to the Petitioner & report by 30-7-51.

Mr. Sen who appears for the Applicant contends that the learned E.A.C. has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules framed for the Administration of Justice in the Garo Hills, and that, in the absence of the procedure prescribed by Rule 31, further proceedings taken by the learned EA. C. were without jurisdiction. Mr. Lahiri for the opposite party on the other hand contends that in this case there was no dispute to be referred to the panchayat Singdon the father admitted that he had taken the properties, and that it was on this admission that the learned E.A.C. proceeded to judgment; that he was not bound, in the circumstances of this case, to act in accordance with Rule 31 of the said rules.

I am unable to accept this contention. It is true that Singdon admitted that he had taken the properties, but the question of his liability to return them was still to be determined. The learned E.A.C. has relied upon some customary law and came to the conclusion that Singdon was bound to return the properties. In other words, there was some question which had to be decided in the case, namely, as to whether or not there was a custom which rendered the father liable to return the properties. Under Rule 31, the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants are bound in all cases in which the parties are indigenous inhabitants of the District--as they are in this case--to induce them to submit their case to a panchayat. If they agree to this, each party shall name an equal number of arbitrators, as laid down in Rule 31. Rule 31 is a general rule which is obligatory upon the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistants to follow in all cases where the parties are indigenous inhabitants of the District. In this case, clearly there was a dispute as to the liability of Singdon to return the properties. The E.A.C. was, therefore, bound to endeavour to induce the parties to submit their case to a panchayat, and as he has not done so, the proceedings must be set aside.

This Court has repeatedly observed that Rule 31 of the Rules framed for the Administration of Civil Justice in the Garo Hills District is a mandatory rule and must be observed and that its non-observance makes further proceedings liable to be set aside, subject to equities between the parties. Accordingly I set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate Court and order that the case be retried and disposed of in accordance with law.

The result is that the application is allowed, with no order as to costs. Pending the disposal of the case, the property will remain under attachment, as has been directed by the learned E.A.C. The rule is made absolute.