Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.K.Deb, J.
Dhani Majhi
Versus
Ranga Majhi
Appeal from Original Decree No. 165 of 1986 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
HINDU LAW - SUCCESSION - SANTHALS - WHETHER GOVERNED BY HINDU LAW - APPLICABILITY OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - CUSTOM OF EXCLUDING MARRIED DAUGHTERS FROM INHERITANCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - LIMITATION - CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, claiming to be the sons of Bhuma Majhi, filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over certain lands, alleging that the lands were the ancestral property of their father and their uncle Batol Majhi, and that after Batol Majhi's death, his daughter Kandri Majhian inherited the property. Kandri Majhian died leaving behind four sons and one married daughter. The plaintiffs claimed that, as per Santhal custom, married daughters are excluded from inheritance and that the property should have devolved on them as the agnates. The defendants, Kandri Majhian's sons, contended that the parties had become Hinduised and were governed by Hindu law, under which married daughters are entitled to inherit property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a racial custom among the Santhals excluding married daughters from inheritance. The court also found that the parties had become Hinduised long before the relevant events and were governed by Hindu law. The court further held that even if the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not applicable to the parties, the widow and married daughter of Batol Majhi would still be entitled to inherit his property as self-acquired property under the old Hindu law of succession.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had a cause of action or right to sue. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable. 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation and adverse possession. 4. Whether the property in dispute was the ancestral property of Bhuma and Batol Majhi and whether after Batol Majhi's death it was inherited by Bhuma and his successors-in-interest. 5. Whether Bhuma or his sons had acquired any interest in the property in dispute or whether they had absolute interest in the property. 6. Whether the property in dispute was the joint property of Sangi and Bhuma or ancestral property of the parties. 7. Whether the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs was correct or the parties were sufficiently Hinduised to attract the provisions of Hindu law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving the existence of a racial custom excluding married daughters from inheritance lay on the plaintiffs, and they failed to discharge this burden. 2. The parties had become Hinduised long before the relevant events and were governed by Hindu law. 3. Even if the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not applicable to the parties, the widow and married daughter of Batol Majhi would still be entitled to inherit his property as self-acquired property under the old Hindu law of succession. 4. The suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had knowledge of the defendants' possession of the property since 1926 but had not filed suit until 1984.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the impugned judgment and decree of the lower court were affirmed.
P.K.Deb, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1986 and 30.9.1986 respectively in Title Suit No. 51 of 1984 passed by the then 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for recovery of possession.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their father Bhuma Manjhi had a brother Batol Majhi @ Bajol Majhi, and this Batol Majhi had only one daughter namely Kandri Majhian who was married with Lusa Majhi, defendant No. 1 Kandri Majhian died leaving behind four sons who are defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and one married daughter Jhuri Majhian, defendant No. 6. The plaintiffs are the sons of Bhuma Majhi. According to the plaintiffs, the lands in Khata Nos. 4 and 5 of Mouza Pandugiti were the ancestral property of the father of the plaintiffs and their uncle Batol Majhi. The father of die plaintiffs became separate long before the last settlement of 1961 and the lands of the plaintiffs father were recorded in the names of the plaintiffs jointly under Khata Nos. 39, 48 and 47. These lands are shown in Schedule C, D and E of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, these are also the ancestral property of both the brothers as mentioned above and they were recorded in the names of the plaintiffs alone after the death of their father and their uncle having no male issue, Khata No. 49 plot No. 352 is a Bandh while plot No. 353 is a Talab and those have been recorded jointly in the name of the plaintiff and Kandri Majian, daughter of Batol Majhi. According to the plaintiffs, these two plots are also in the exclusive possession of the plaintiffs to the exclusion of the Kadri Majhian and she never enjoyed or possessed those two plots. As per the plaint case, father of Kadri Majhian, Batol Majhi died before 1961 and parties being Santhals and their succession being according to the customs married daughters are never allowed to succeed or inherit the properties of their father and those properties devolved on the agnates alone. Kandri Majhian married long before the last survey settlement of 1961 and during the settlement operation, Kadri Majhian requested the plaintiffs to allow her to enjoy the usufruct of Schedule-B properties which belonged to her father and she gave an undertaking that the plaintiffs would take possession over the land in Schedule-B soon after her death. Only out of sympathy and affection, Kadri Majhian was allowed to possess Schedule-B lands, regarding Schedule-B lands le. plot No. 353, which is a Talab, which was recorded in the name of Kandri Majhian, daughter of Batol Majhi. Although, such entry was there in the. survey settlement but it did not create any title to Kandri Majhian and those were being possessed by Kandri Majhian only on a permission being given to her by the plaintiffs. After the death of Batol Majhi. according to the plaintiffs, those Schedule-B and F lands had reverted to the plaintiffs alone to the exclusion of Kadri Majhian or her heirs. Kandri Majhian died in the year 1981. During her Shradhisa ceremony, the defendants and other villagers requested the plaintiffs to allow them to enjoy the Schedule-B lands for three years as the defendants had to spend much in the Shradh ceremony of their mother. The plaintiffs acceded to the request of the defendants and the defendants were allowed to possess those lands on permission alone. But they failed to return back the lands and were asserting title over the Schedule-B and Schedule-F lands. The present suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule B land and for recovery of possession in. respect of Schedule-B lands and for confirmation of possession in respect of Schedule-F lands.
3. Joint written statement have been filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and has been contended, inter alia, that the suit as framed is not maintainable, that the same is barred by limitation, that the sa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
