Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1972 DIGILAW 82 (GAU)

U. Jim Myntri v. Franciswell and another

1972-11-14

BAHARUL ISLAM, M.C.PATHAK

body1972
Judgement PATHAK, J. :- This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Judge, District Council Court, United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Shillong. The appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. His case in short is that he was elected as a Myntri to the Durbar of the Syiem of Mylliem as representative of the Sohtun Clan and the tenure was for life. That the Myntri is neither a Chief nor a Headman. The acting Syiem of Mylliem (defendant No. 2) and his Durbar dismissed the plaintiff on 2-8-62 without serving any notice on the plaintiff or giving any opportunity to him to be heard and the order was never communicated to the plaintiff. He could learn that certain allegations were made against him and on those allegations he was dismissed though the allegations were false. In the circumstances he filed the suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 1966 in the court of the Subordinate District Council at Shillong. The defendants filed their written statement and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. The defendants averred inter alia that the suit was not maintainable and that the petitioner was removed in accordance with the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. On the pleadings of the parties 12 issues were framed by the learned trial court. 3. The learned trial court, however, decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and therefore he dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. Issue No. 1 is to the following effect. 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this suit? 4. On appeal the learned Judge, District Council Court upheld the order of the learned trial court and found that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the plaintiffs suit. 6. The admitted position is that the plaintiff was a Myntri in the Durbar of the Syiem of Mylliem as representative of the Sohtun Clan. The defence is that the plaintiff was removed under Section 9 (1) of the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959. 6. The admitted position is that the plaintiff was a Myntri in the Durbar of the Syiem of Mylliem as representative of the Sohtun Clan. The defence is that the plaintiff was removed under Section 9 (1) of the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959. Under Section 9 (2) of the Act an appeal is provided against an order under Section 9 (1) to the Executive committee, whose decision shall be final. Under Section 2 (i) Headman means a Myntri, a Sem Raid, a Basan, a Lyngdoh Raid, a Matabor, Elector, a Pator, a Sangot and a village elder. 7. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows :- "Section 3. Elections and Appointment of Chiefs and Headmen - Subject to the provision of this Act and the Rules made thereunder all elections and appointments of Chiefs or Headmen shall be in accordance with the existing customs prevailing in the Elaka concerned." 8. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows :- "Section 7. Confirmation of Headmen - (1) All the appointments of headmen in the Elakas specified in Appendices I and II shall be confirmed by the Chief and his Durbar and the names of such headmen shall forthwith be sent by the Chief to the Executive Committee. (2) If a dispute arises regarding any matter relating to or connected with, the election of headmen, the dispute shall be referred by the party or parties concerned to the Chief and his Durbar for decision. An appeal against such decision shall lie to the Executive Committee whose decision shall be final." 9. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows :- "Section 9 - Removal and suspension of Headmen - (1) If at any time it appears to the Chief and his Durbar that a Headman is functioning in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Elaka or any part thereof, the Chief and his Durbar may suspend or remove him from his office. When any of such steps is taken by the Chief and his Durbar, the Chief shall forthwith report the matter to the Executive Committee. When any of such steps is taken by the Chief and his Durbar, the Chief shall forthwith report the matter to the Executive Committee. (2) An appeal against any order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 9 may be preferred within 30 days from the date on which the order is communicated to the party or parties concerned, to the Executive Committee whose decision shall be final." 10. On consideration of the scheme of the Act it is found that Headmen which means a Myntri also is elected and his election or appointment is confirmed by the Chief and his Durbar. A Myntri who is included in the term "Headmen" may be suspended or removed from his office if at any time it appears to the Chief and his Durbar that such Myntri is functioning in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of the Elaka or any part thereof. An appeal is provided against any order of suspension or removal of a Myntri. An appeal lies to the Executive Committee whose decision shall be final under sub-section (2) of Section 9. 11. It is found that the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 is a special Act under which there are provisions of election of Headmen, there are provisions for decision of any dispute arising out of election of Headmen, there are provisions for suspension or removal of Headmen on particular grounds and there are provisions for appeal against such order of suspension or removal of Headmen and it is provided that the decision in such appeal shall be final. It is also found that this is a special Act regarding appointment and succession of Chiefs and Headmen and the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunal created under it. There is adequate remedy provided under the Act itself which the Civil Court would normally do in a suit. The cognizance of the instant suit by Civil Court is impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It may also be noted that the spirit of the Civil Procedure Code is only applicable in the area in question. 12. The cognizance of the instant suit by Civil Court is impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It may also be noted that the spirit of the Civil Procedure Code is only applicable in the area in question. 12. In the circumstances we hold that the Civil Courts jurisdiction is excluded for trial of the dispute in the instant case that is, regarding the dismissal of a Myntri under Section 9 (1) of the Act. In the result we affirm the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, District Council Court. 13. The appeal stands dismissed. But we make no order as to costs. 14. B. ISLAM, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.