Deka J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and delivery of possession with respect to 18 bighas 1 katha and 18 lechas of land covered by dag NO 19 o£ periodic patta No. 5 of village Dumnigaon in Mouza No. VII in the district of Garo Hills. [2] The suit was brought by one Panchati Koohni and her case was that the land formerly belonged to one Jhatai Koehni on whose death it was divided among her four daughters. The first two daughters died without female issues and the land devolved according to the custom by which the parties were governed on Pagai Kochni and she also died and left the land in the possession of her son Gathis who had also died subsequently and according to the matriarchal System by which the parties are governed the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the land and get back possession thereof from Gathis's wife Barmani Kochni. [3] The defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that she has got possession on the-basis of mutation proceedings and her title has been proved by virtue of Chat mutation granted to her by the Revenue Court, she being already in possession thereof. [4] The learned Assistant Deputy Commissioner who heard the suit found in favour of the plain­tiff and decreed the suit and on appeal the Deputy Commissioner upheld the order and the decree passed by the trial Court against which decree or judgment the defendant has come up in appeal. [5] The only point taken before us is that the parties being residents of the Garo Hills, they are governed by the Rules framed for Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District and according to B. 31, the Deputy Commissioner and his Assistant shall in all cases in which the par­ties are indigenous inhabitants of the district, and in all other cases may endeavour to induce them to submit their case to a panchayat and in this case though the parties are indigenous inhabitants of the district, this procedure was not followed. [6] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied on a decision of this Court reported in Monje Meclik v. Meclok Meckik, I. L. B. (1950) 2 Assam 59 where it was held that non-observance of B. 81 of the Rules framed for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District goes to the root of the jurisdic­tion of the Deputy Commissioner in the trial o) suits as mentioned in those rules and that thr Deputy Commissioner is bound under the terms of B. 31 to induce the parties to submit the case to a panchayat and if they agree to do so, to follow the procedure laid down in B. 81. [7] The learned Advocate appearing for the res­pondent has conceded that B. 31 was not followed by the Assistant Commissioner in this case. [8] Under these circumstances we hold that the trial was vitisted for non-observance of B. 31 and the judgment and decree are bound to be set aside. [9] We, therefore, set aside the judgments and' decrees passed by the Courts below and remand the case to the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the suit after com­plying with the provisions of B 31 of the Rules' framed for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District. In case the parties do not agree the learned Assistant to the-Deputy Commissioner will record evidence afresh-and dispose of the case according to law. The result is that the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. [10] The rule connected with this appeal is discharged. [11] Thadani C. J- I agree. Appeal allowed.