The election of Pahan is generally elective, but in some villages, on customs, Pahanship is hereditary. When the Pahan khunt becomes extinct or developed to other religion, then and then only, it remained to the other aboriginals in the village to elect a Pahan.

Prasun Kumar Deb, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree passed by Sri Loknath Prasad, the then 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Title Appeal no.60/18 of 1977/1982, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1977 passed by Sri Mohan Krishna Verma, 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in Title suit no. 15/18 of 1974/1975.

2. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 and respondent no.5, Bhatu Pahan, who is dead, instituted the above mentioned Title suit before the Sub-Judge, Ranchi, in respect of the lands of Khata nos. 211 and 212 of village Chhipra, P.S. Ratu, against the appellants and the other respondents in representative capacity under Order I rule VIII of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs-respondents that the post of Pahan is hereditary and not elective and this post is held by one of the members of Pahankhunt i.e. the plaintiffs and defendants no.10 and the defendants and other villagers have no right to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and defendant no.10 in respect of the lands in suit. The prayer for permanent injunction was also there restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and their family members who represent the Pahan khunt over the suit land. As per the plaintiffs, one Temba Pahan had three sons, namely, Marua Pahan, Karma Pahan and Leria Pahan. Marua Pahan had three sons, namely, Jitua Pahan, Deba Pahan and Ladhu Pahan. Plaintiff no.3 is the son of Jitu Pahan and plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Ladhu Pahan. The line of Karma Pahan became extinct and Leria Pahan had two sons, namely, Bhatu Pahan (Plaintiff no.5) and Pate Pahan (defendant no.10). The pahania lands is the suit lands and the same remained in possession since time immemorial to the family members of Pahan khunt and the plaintiffs alongwith defendant no.10 had hereditary right over the land and the •post of Pahan was subject to change after three years or sometimes thereafter amongst the member of the Pahan khunt and when the plaintiffs and defendant no.10 belonged to Pahan khunt, they had got hereditary right over the suit lands only Pahan elected from amongst pahan khunt has the right to enjoy the properties in which other villagers can have no right, but the defendants were trying to create obstruction in the peaceful -enjoyment of the Pahan khunt belonging to the plaintiffs and hence the suit was filed. On earlier occasion, there was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in which the possession of the plaintiffs have been confirmed by the Executive Magistrate. There was also a criminal case against some persons for reaping away paddy from the Pahan lands. One of the plaintiffs filed a criminal case and the persons who had reaped Paddy had been convicted under Sections 379 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant nos. 1 to 9. It was admitted in the written statement that the land in suit is a Pahanai land meant for the use and occupation of the Pahan who discharged the duties of village priest and do Bhut puja on behalf of the aboriginal community, but the post of Pahan is always subject to change triennially i.e. after three years by the process of "Soop Chalan" winnowing box and whoever is elected as Pahan by the said method has only right to do the duty of Pahan and to cultivate and use the usufruct of Pahanai lands for the purpose of doing Bhut Puja for the betterment of the community. According to the defendants, any member of Mundari Uraon community can be elected as Pahan. According to the defendants, the defendant no.1, Bandhana Munda, who is appellant no.1 in this appeal, was elected as Pahan and he was in possession of Pahan lands and the plaintiff is, practically, creating trouble in the village and wants to make the office of Pahan hereditary.

5. In the court below following issues were framed :

(i) Has the plaintiff a