JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 (Decree sealed and signed on 14.09.2017) passed by learned District Judge-III, Gumla in Title Appeal No.04/2015 whereby the learned court of appeal below dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2015 (Decree sealed and signed on 04.03.2015) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Division-I) cum A.C.J.M. Gumla in Partition Suit No.18/2005, has been confirmed.

3. The Partition Suit No.18 of 2005 has been instituted for the partition of suit land more fully described in Schedule A of the plaint being the land under Khata No.6 and 7 of Village Ludgo, P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla.

4. It transpires from the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff''s case in the court below was that the parties of the suit are Oraon by cast and they are governed by their customary law in the matter of inheritance and successors according to which the widows are not entitled to inherit and property left by their husband rather they are entitled only for maintenance till their death or remarriage. Similarly the daughters are also entitled for maintenance only till their remarriage without having any right of inheritance. The lands of Khata No.6 and 7 being the suit lands were recorded in the name of Etwa Oraon S/o Somra Oraon who happened to be the common ancestor of the parties. The said Etwa Oraon died living behind his only son Lede Oraon and the said Lede Oraon also died living behind him his three sons Lohra Oraon, Ewtwa Oraon and Deoshay Oraon. The Lohra Oraon died issue less whereas the Etwa Oraon died living behind him his two sons namely Bandhnu Oraon and Dasrath Oraon. The said Dasrath Oraon is the plaintiff of this case and the Bandhnu Oraon died living behind his only son Hira Oraon who is the proforma defendant in that case. The Deosai Oraon died living behind his three sons Charwa Oraon, Pandra Oraon and Temba Oraon who were arrayed as defendants no.1,2 and 3 of the suit respectively. During the pendency of the suit defendant no.3 Temba Oeraon died and name of his heirs and successors have been brought on record as substituted defendants no.3a and 3b. The further case was that the suit land is still joint and yet the parties are cultivating lands separately according to their convenience but it has been never partitioned amongst the parties by metes and bounds. As there are some disputes between the parties and it is not possible for the plaintiffs and proforma defendant to remain joint with the defendants and the suit lands were liable to be partitioned in two equal shares out of which the plaintiffs and proforma defendant together will get one share and one share wilol be allotted to the defendants. The plaintiffs and proforma defendant demanded for partition but the defendants refused to do so.

On the above facts, the respondents/plaintiffs had prayed for following reliefs:

(A)That a decree for partition of the suit land be passed.

(B) That 1/2 share of plaintiffs and proforma defendant be carved out by appointing a pleader commissioner and the same be delivered in possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant through the process of the court.

(C) That full cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants.

(D)That any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs and proforma defendant are entitled be given.

5. After service of summon the defendants no.2 Panda Oraon and defendants no.3 Temba Oraoaon have appeared and filed a written statement in the suit and taken ground that the suit is not maintainable in present form and for the reliefs claimed and the same is false and vexatious. They have denied the claim of plaintiffs and proforma defendants regarding to their half share in the present properties. According to these defendants the common ancestor Lede Oraon had already partitioned the sui