Prior partition remains valid unless cogent evidence of reunion is established; absent such evidence, the ownership claims of plaintiffs over disputed properties are affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the reversing Judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.44 of 1996 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 before the First Appellate Court in 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.32 of 1999.

The respondents in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.44 of 1996 and appellants as well as respondent Nos.6 & 7 before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.32 of 1999.

The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2^nd Appeal) against the defendants (respondents in this 2^nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.44 of 1996 was a suit for declaration.

The properties described in Schedule “H” & “I” are the suit properties.

3. According to the plaintiffs, their common ancestor was Mundura Majhi. Mundura Majhi died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Durga & Kana. Durga died leaving behind his 5 sons i.e. Ramdo, Suna, Sida, Tila & Gora.

Ramdo, Sida, Tila and Gora died issueless. Suna died leaving behind his 2 sons i.e. Durga @ Munsi (defendant No.1) and Charu Charan. Charu Charan died leaving behind his wife and one son i.e. Heera Majhi (defendant No.2) and Tilak @ Chandan Majhi (defendant No.3).

The 2^nd son of Mundura Majhi i.e. Kana Majhi died in the year 1964 leaving behind his daughter Bali. Bali died in the year 1987 leaving behind her 3 sons and one daughter i.e. Shyamsundar, Kana (plaintiff No.1), Devi (plaintiff No.2).

Shyama Sundar died leaving behind his wife and two sons i.e Duli (Plaintiff No.3), Ratha (Plaintiff No.4) and Laxman (Plaintiff No.5).

4. Though the parties to the suit are Santal by caste and belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, but they are guided and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.

All the suit properties along with other properties had originally belonged to Mundura Majhi. The said Mundura Majhi had properties in two Mouzas i.e. Tadikijharan and Bhupad. Their ancestral properties in Mouza Tadikijharan & Bhupad were Ac.21.98 Decimals & Ac.4.80 Decimals under Sabik Khata No.25 & 71 respectively, those have been described in Schedule “B”.

5. After the death of Mundura Majhi, the properties left by him under Sabik Khata No.25 & 71 in Mouza Tadikijharan and Bhupad devolved upon his two sons i.e. Durga and Kana. After the death of Durga, while Kana was alive, the suit properties were partitioned in the year 1945 between Kana and the sons of Durga i.e. Ramdo, Suna & Gora in the month of Magha in presence of the Bhadralokas. In such partition in the year 1945 between Kana, Ramdo, Suna and Gora, the above children of Durga Majhi jointly got Schedule “C” properties and Kana alone got Schedule “D” properties. The members of both the branches i.e. the members of the branch of Durga & Kana possessed their above respective allotted shares separately. When Kana expired leaving behind his daughter Bali as his only successor, then, the Schedule “D” properties, those had fallen in his share devolved upon his daughter i.e. Bali and Bali possessed the Schedule “D” properties after the death of her father Kana as exclusive owner. On the basis of exclusive ownership and possession of Bali alone and the sons of Durga jointly to their respective allotted shares from their ancestral properties in respect of their allotted pro