Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. The substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal preferred by defendant-appellant- appellants is :--Whether in view of the fact that the deed of adoption was executed in the year 1950, a suit filed in the year 1981 was barred under the law of limitation. No liberty had been granted to raise another substantial questions of law but it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the questions to be answered are whether Section 2 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act bars adoption by Schedule Tribes and whether the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to the plaintiff who is a Munda (a schedule tribe)?

2. The question aforesaid arose out of the following short facts:--

The plaintiff Paku Mundan (who was subsequently substituted by Khaintu Munda) was the daughter of Ghuran Munda. The pleading is that the plaintiff as also her ancestors were sufficiently Hinduised and they were governed by Hindu Mitkashara Law in the matters of succession and inheritance. The father of the plaintiff held and possessed lands under Khata Nos. 20 and 101 of Village Turidih. P.S. Raidih of R.S. as his raiyati lands fully described in schedule B of the plaint. He was also in possession over the same till he died in the year 1973 as the sole owner. The father of the plaintiff Ghuran Munda sold the lands of Plot Nos. 988, 990, 996 and 987 of Khata No. 20 and Plot Nos. 269, 270 and 275 of Khata No, 101 to Bahira Munda by a registered deed of sale dated 11.2.1946 and the purchaser came and remained in possession and he was still in possession thereof. The father of the plaintiff had no heir excepting the plaintiff his own daughter, she all along lived in the house of her father and even after her marriage her husband was also adopted as Ghardamad who rendered all services and helped and cultivated all lands belonging to his father till he was alive and after the death of his father he performed his last rites according to Hindu rituals. After the death of her father the plaintiff being the class I heir inherited the properties of her father and came in possession in her own right as the sole surviving heir under the Hindu Law and remained in peaceful possession of the suit lands described in Schedule B of the plaint.

3. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants No. 1 and .2 after the death of the plaintiffs father lay false claims over the suit properties. This necessitated a 144 Cr PC proceeding bearing No. 112 of 1981 where the defendants No. 1 and 2 produced a forged adoption deed allegedly executed on 6.6.1950 by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff that deed of gift is a completely false and fabricated document as it was not known to any person in the village, it was behind the back of the plaintiff as she had no knowledge of existence of such deed. The plaintiff was paying rent though some receipts was also produced by defendant but no mutation order was filed. It was further pleaded that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were strangers to the family of her father and defendant No. 1 was never adopted nor there was any occasion for the same nor it was according to law and custom. The defendant No. 1 was a Dhanger of the plaintiffs father and during that period he stealthily removed some papers and rent receipts and he was turned out more than five of six years ago and since then he was residing in village at Sakari in the district of Ranchi. It appears that there was a miscellaneous case between the parties but according to the plaintiff it was decided on conjectures consequently that is not binding on her.

4. The contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement, according to them the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, law of limitation and adverse possession and the plaintiff had no right to challenge it. The deceased plaintiff was the wife of one Sukar Munda of Village Sikoy P.S.