S. B. Sinha, J.

This First Appeal arises out of the Judgement and Decree dated 6.7.1984 passed by Sri Ibrar Hassan, Sub-Judge, Chaibasa, in title Suit No. 39 of 1981 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the plaintiffs ‘appellants’ suit. The plaintiffs filed the aforementioned Title Suit claiming inter-alia the following reliefs :

(a) For a decree for declaration of the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in respect to the lands mentioned in Schedule B.

(b) For a decree for declaration that the defendant no. 1 and 2 have no manner of right and title or interest in the lands fully mentioned in Schedule B.

(c) For a decree for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Malho Majhian in respect of plot nos. 297, 298, 636 was without right, illegal, abinitio void, fraudulent and is a nullity under the law and does not confer any right on the defendant no. 2 and is not binding on the plaintiffs

(d) for a decree confirming possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plots, or in the alternative a decree for recovery of possession if the plaintiffs are found to be out of possession.

(e) For cost of the suit and for any other relief or reliefs that the plaintiffs are entitled to.

2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The relationship of plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 would appear from the following genealogical table as appended to schedule C of the plaint.

Sakila Manjhi

Raghu Labho Baset

(Died

issueiess) Sakil Manjhi Samu Sakila Labho Ganera

=Malho Majhian Pf. 4 =Guni

Raimat Manjhiain Baset Mohan Singu

(Deft no. 1) Pf.1 Pf.2 Pf.3

Wife of Sural

Manjhi

(Deft. No. 2)

3. Admittedly, Sakila Manjhi died in the year 1976 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives namely Malho Majhian and defendant no 1 Raimat Majhiain. The plaintiffs hail from the branch of Baset Manjhi.

4. On 25.5.1980 Malho Majhian transferred three plots out of the six plots details whereof have been given in Schedule B of the plaint in favour of defendant no.2, who is husband of defendant no. 1.

5. It is also admitted that Malho Majhiain died in the month of October, 1980. According to the plantiffs appellants they being the Santhals are governed by their customary laws in the matter of succession and on the death of any male member, the properties devolve on his agnates.

6. On the other band, the case of the defendants as it appears from the written statement is that the family of the parties are sufficiently Hinduised and they are governed by Hind Law in the matter of succession and inheritance.

7. The defendants inter alia contened that deed of sale dated 25.9.1980 (Ext.3) was valid in law and thus, the defendant no 2 has acquired valid right, title and interest.

8. The learned Court below in view of the aforementioned rival contentions of the parties framed the following issued :

(a) Is the suit maintainable in its present from and for the reliefs claimed ?

(b) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action or right to sue the defendants ?

(c) Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?

(d) Have the parties to suit been sufficiently Hinduised and are they governed by Hindu Law or by their triable custom in the matters of inheritance and succession ?

(e) Whether the suit properties devolved on the plaintiffs or Malho Majhiain and her daughter defendant no. 1 after the death of Sakila Manjhi ?

(f) Whether Malho Manjhiain legally transferred the three suit plots to defendant no. 2 ?

(g) Whether the plantiffs or defendant nos. 1 and 2 have right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties ?

(h) To what relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to ?

9. The learned Court below in Paragraph 14 of his Judgment has held that as the parties are sufficiently Hinduised. they would be governed by Hindu Law in the matters of succession and Inheritance.

10. The learned Court below further held that in this view of the matter on the death of Sakila Manjhi, his interest devolved upon his widow and daughter and thus the