IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that members of a Scheduled Tribe can be governed by the Hindu Succession Act if they have adopted Hindu customs, allowing for the validity of property transfers under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant for setting aside the Judgment dated 20.04.2015 decree signed on 02.05.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 60 of 2007 by learned District Judge I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder Judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007, decree signed on 13.09.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge VI, Jamshedpur was dismissed.

Factual matrix

2. Factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff/appellant has instituted Title Suit No. 54 of 1999 against the defendants for declaration of gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is null and void being illegal and fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff with other consequential reliefs.

According to plaintiff the suit Scheduled B property was belonging to his ancestor Haru Bhumij who died leaving behind his four sons Kokil Bhumij, Gahan Bhumij, Sohan Bhumij and Madhav Bhumij, out of them Sohan Bhumij died issueless. Gahan Bhumij died leaving behind his sole daughter Bimla Dasi who also died unmarried. Madhav Bhumij died leaving behind his sole daughter Ratna Bhumijian @ Ratna Dasi who is defendant no.1 in this suit. Kokil Bhumij died leaving behind his two sons namely, Madhu Bhumij and Shambhoo Bhumij. Madhu Bhumij also died leaving behind one son Kargal Bhumij. Kargal Bhumij died issueless. Shambhu Bhmij died leaving behind his sole son Shiv Nath Singh who is plaintiff and sole male member left in the family of said Haru Bhumij. It is further alleged that plaintiff belong to Bhumij community and in Bhumij community married daughter are excluded from right of inheritance with respect to ancestral property as they are Schedule Tribe, so in the matter of inheritance and succession they are guided by their traditional tribal laws prevalent in their community and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable in their case. It is further pleaded that parties have sufficiently Hinduised and they are guided by Mitakshra School of Hindu in the matter of succession and inheritance. Defendant no. 1, namely, Ratna Bhumij @ Ratna Dasi is the aunt (father’s sister) of plaintiff and defendant no.2, Gangadhar Singh is stranger to the family of the plaintiff. When defendant no. 1 became widow she left her in-laws house and started living with plaintiff at Patamda and plaintiff was also taking all care of defendant no. 1. When defendant no. 1 became old defendant no.2 came in close contact with her and behind the back of plaintiff defendant no.2 managed to get a gift deed in his favour executed by defendant no. 1 bearing no. 2136 dated 15.05.1997 at Registry office, Jamshedpur. Plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid gift deed in the first week of July,1997 when the defendant no. 2 disclosed the fact of obtaining gift and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from their land. On 05.07.1999, defendant obtained certified copy of said gift deed and came to know that suit lands have been included in that gift deed. Since the defendant no. 1 is the married daughter, so as per the custom and tradition prevalent in their society being Scheduled Tribe, defendant no.1 had no right to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant no. 2, hence the gift deed is illegal and void. It is further stated that defendant has also managed to obtain permission u/s 46 of C.N.T. Act vide Misc. Case No. 72/90-91 after suppressing the material facts that defendant no.1 has not right to transfer the ancestral land of the plaintiff. Since married daughter in Schedule Tribe community had no right to inherit the ancestral property as such survey record of right was wrongly prepared in the name of Bimla Dasi and Ratna Dasi and their possession has also been shown wrongly in the remark column of survey record, however, it will not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 has got the gift deed knowingly and willfully for his wrongful gain and to