KA SHANAMAI JAID SIEM AND ANR. Vs. KA PRESIMAI JAID SIEM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, Mr. Baruah very kindly volunteered to act as 'amicus curiae' to argue the question of limitation. The point arose in this way. The Ct of Federation decided this matter on 19 -11 -49; ordinarily an appeal lies from the appellate decision of the D.C. under Rule 26 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice in the Khasi & Jaintia Hills within 60 days exclusive of the time taken for obtaining copies.

(2.) MR . Goswami for the petnrs argued that in this case, no appeal lay as the matter involved questions of customary laws. Mr. Barooah conceded this position, but he stated that the period prescribed, namely 60 days, for preferring an appeal from the decision of the Ct of Federation should be taken as the period for preferring a revn appln.

(3.) THE simple question then arises whether I can interfere in revn against the decision of the Ct of Federation in a matter which involves questions of customary law. In order to appreciate the position, it is necessary to set out a few facts. The pltfs brought a suit in the Ct of the Bakhraws for a declaration of their title to and possession of certain property which has been found to be ancestral property. The Ct of Bakhraws gave a decree to the pltfs, Ka Klerimai & Ka Presimai Jaid Siem, awarding them a part of the ancestral property. Against the decision of the Bakhraws made on 27 -6 -46, Ka Shanamai Jaid Siem & Ka Risimai Jai Siem preferred an appeal to the Siem of Khyrim on 7 -9 -46. During the pendency of the appeal in the Ct of the Siem of Khyrim, the defts made an appln to the Ct of Bakhraws asking that Ct to review its judgment dated 27 -6 -46. The Ct of Bakhraws allowed this review appln by their judgment, dated 4 -12 -1946. But when the Siem of Khyrim heard the appeal against the decision of the Bakhraws made on 27 -6 -46, not only did he affirm the judgment & decree of the Ct of the Bakhraws, dated 27 -6 -1946, by his judgment, dated 18 -10 -1948, but also commented adversely on the order of the Ct ,of the Bakhraws, dated 4 -12 -1946, by which it had reviewed its own judgment passed on 27 -6 -1946.