Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 48
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Chotrai Manjhi
Versus
Rupi Manjhian
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 109 of 1981 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 05, 1990
Aboriginals who have become sufficiently Hinduised and governed by Hindu Law in matters of inheritance and succession will continue to be governed under the Old Hindu Law despite the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Headnote:
HINDU LAW - SUCCESSION - ABORIGINALS - HINDUISATION - GOVERNED BY HINDU LAW - CONTINUES TO BE GOVERNED BY OLD HINDU LAW DESPITE COMING INTO FORCE OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 HAS NO APPLICATION TO ABORIGINALS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, descendants of the original owner Dalhat Manjhi, filed a suit claiming ownership of the suit properties after the death of Man Singh Manjhi, alleging that the parties were governed by customary laws where a widow or daughter does not inherit the properties of the last male holder. The defendants, Rupi Manjhian, daughter of Man Singh Manjhi, claimed inheritance rights under Hindu Law, asserting that the parties were sufficiently Hinduised.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had become sufficiently Hinduised and were governed by Hindu Law in matters of inheritance and succession. It held that Rupi Manjhian inherited her father's estate and that the plaintiffs were not reversioners of Man Singh.
Issues: 1. Whether the parties were sufficiently Hinduised and governed by Hindu Law in matters of inheritance and succession. 2. Whether Rupi Manjhian inherited her father's estate under Hindu Law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even though the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not apply to aboriginals, once a family became Hinduised and governed by Hindu Law in matters of inheritance and succession, they would continue to be governed under the Old Hindu Law. The court relied on the fact that the parties had become sufficiently Hinduised and were governed by Hindu Law prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, upholding the trial court's decision that Rupi Manjhian inherited her father's estate under Hindu Law.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs arise out of a judgment and decree, dated 31.8.1981 passed by Shri Madan Mohan Verma, Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa in Title Suit No. 230 of 1980 whereby and whereunder the said learned court dismissed ths plaintiffs-appellants suit.
2. Admittedly, one Dalhat Manjhi was the original owner in respect of the properties in suit. He died leaving behind four sons namely (1) Palu Manjhi (2) Sangram Manjhi (3) Chotrai Manjhi and (4) Jitral Manjhi. The plaintiff No. 3 is the decendants of Palu Manjhi Whereas the plaintiffs No. 2, 4 and 5 are the decendants of Sangram Manjhi and plaintiff No. 1 is the decendants of Chotrai Manjhi.
3. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Palu Manjhi, the aforementioned parties remained joint. In fact, it appears from the pleadings of the parties that they separated from Jitrai Manjhi who died leaving behind his son Hari Manjhi. Hari Manjhi died prior to the Survey, Settlement Operation and the suit Khata being Khata No. 75 of village Balrampur was recorded in the name of Rupi Manjhian widow of Hari Manjhi.
4. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of Survey Settlement Operation, Man Singh Manjhi was a minor, whereas according to the defendants, he was a major.
5. However, it is the case of both the parties that Man Singh Manjhi died after Rupi Manjhian (widow of Hari Manjhi) as would be evident from paragraph 5 of the plaint and paragraph 10 of the written statements.
6. Man Singh Manjhi died leaving behind a daughter also named Rupi Manjhian who is the defendant-respondents.
7. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Man Singh Manjhi, the properties in suit reverted back to them, in view of the fact that the parties are governed by their customary laws (sic) where a widow or a daughter does not inherit the properties of the last male holder.
8. On the other hand, the case of the defendants-respondents is that the parties were sufficiently Hinduised and are governed by Hindu Law ia the matters of inheritance and succeession.
9. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:
1. Is the tuit, as framed, maintainable?
2. Have the plaintiffs got any valid cause of action for the suit?
3. Is the suit barred by the law of limitation?
4. Is the suit property valued and court-fee paid sufficient.
5. Have the parties to the suit been sufficiently Hinduised and are they governed by Hindu Law in the matters of inhenuuee and succession?
6. Have the plaintiffs got right, title and interest in the suit lands and are they in possession of the same?
7. To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
10. The learned trial court while deciding issue No. 5 held that the parties have become sufficiently Hinduised and are governed by the Hindu Law in the matters of inheritance and succession.
11. The learned trial court, therefore, held that Rupi Manjhian, daughter of Man Singh inherited the properties of her rather and the plaintiffs are not reversioners of Man Singh in respect of the properties in suit. The learned court below, in this regard has relied upoa a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1929 page 577, Narendra Narain Choudhuri V/s. Nagendra Narain Choudhuri and Ors. -- ; Babu Manjhi and Anr. V/s. Bukhan Manjhi and Ors. -- ; Rafail Uraon and Anr. V/s. Baiha Uraon and Anr. 1970 PLJR p. 573; Langa Manjhi and Ors. V/s. Jaba Manjhian and Ors. AIR 1946 Pat p. 218 and Chunku Manjhi and Ors. V/s. Bhabani Manjhian and Ors.
12. Mr. P.K. Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants did not challenge the finding of fact that the parties were sufficiently Hinduised. He, however, submitted that in view of the fact that the parties are not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as they are a originals, they would be governed by their customary law and in that view of the matter, Rupi Manjhian could not ha
