1. This first appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 18-2-1984 passed by Shri Ibrar Hassan Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa in Title Suit No. 32 of 1982 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court decreed the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow campass.

3. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit claiming a decree for partition in respect of her half share in the suit property. The relationship of the parties as alleged in the plaint will appear from the following genealogical table:

4. According to the plaintiff, she being the daughter of Umacharan Singh has half share in the suit property whereas the defendants together have got half share therein.

5. The plaintiff has asserted that the parties are Hindus and are governed by the Dayabhag School of Hindu Law.

6. The defendants appeared in the aforementioned suit and filed written statement contending inter alia therein that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Umacharan Singh but is daughter of Keshav Singh. It was further alleged that Umacharan died in the month of Paush 31, 1341 B. S. Whereas Keshav, father of the parties died in the year 1352 B.S.

7. The defendants have further contended that the parties being members of Scheduled Tribes, they are not governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law but are governed by their customary laws in the matter of inheritance and successions. The defendants have further contended that they are not Hindus and according to their family custom, daughters and/or cognates are completely excluded from inheriting the properties either of a male or a female. The defendants have also contended that Mandodri, after the death of her husband married Keshav in Sanghai form and thereafter she began to live with, her husband Keshav. Mandodri died in the year 1382 B.S. The defendants further contended that Mandodri had also no interest in the property but during the recent Survey settlement operations, the holding in suit had wrongly been recorded in the names of Mandodri and the defendants.

8. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:

1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue? 2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession? 4. Is there unity of title and possession of the parties over the suit properties? 5. Are the parties Hindus and governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law or by their Tribal and Custom? 6. Is the plaintiff daughter of Umacharan Singh? 7. Had Ghuiram, grandfather of the defendants excavated a tank and reclaimed a khet in C.S. Plot No. 744 of Makula and had Umacharan ever possessed the said properties? 8. To what relief or reliefs, is the plaintiff entitled?

9. The learned Court below while deciding issue No.5 held that the parties had become sufficiently Hinduised and were governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law.

10. The learned trial Court answered issue No. 6 also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

11. Mrs. Jaya Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that admittedly the parties are Bhumijs which tribe has been declared to be a Scheduled Tribe under the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and as such, the question of the parties being Hindus or being governed by the Dayabhag School of Hindu Law does not arise. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that in view of S. 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ,the said Act having no application in relation to the members of the Scheduled Tribes, the parties must be held to be governed by their customary laws in the matter of inheritance and successions. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event the plaintiff has not been able to show that the parties have become sufficiently Hinduised or the family is governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law.

12. The learned counsel furth