The plaintiff, as the daughter of Bhagmat, retains her inheritance rights over property despite her mother's remarriage, confirming the applicability of old Hindu law over Scheduled Tribes.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The LRs of the original defendant No.1 are in appeal against a confirming judgment. The appeal questions the correctness of judgment dated 25.09.1992, followed by decree passed by learned District Judge, Baripada in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1988, whereby the judgment dated 04.10.1988, followed by decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur in Title Suit No. 10 of 1995, was confirmed.

2. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff for recovery of possession and for declaration that the sale deeds dated 17.04.1984 executed by her mother in favour of the defendants are invalid. It is the plaintiff’s case that one Bhagmat Majhi was the original owner of the suit properties, who had married Damani. The plaintiff was born out of said marriage. Her father, Bhagmat died when she was two years old. Her mother, Damani remarried Dasmat Soren after death of her husband. The plaintiff possessed her half share of her father’s property separately from her mother and she allowed her to possess the other half till her death in 1984. The defendants managed to get the sale deeds in question executed by Damani in their favour in respect of the suit property, which are invalid.

3. The defendants contested the suit by resisting the plea of the plaintiff that she was the daughter of Bhagmat. According to them, Bhagmat had never married Damani and plaintiff was not his daughter as Damani was married to Dasmath. The plaintiff is the daughter of Dasmat and Damani. The suit properties originally belonged to Kanda and Bastu, who were brothers but Bhagmat was the son of Kanda. Dasmat and four others were sons of Bastu. The suit properties were recorded jointly in the names of Bastu and Bhagmat in 1927 settlement and were being possessed jointly. Dasmat died unmarried for which his share passed on to the other four sons of Bastu by survivorship. Damani had never executed any sale deed in favour of the defendants but they possessed the suit property for about 45 years.

4. On the rival pleadings as above, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action?

2. Is the suit barred by limitation?

3. Is the suit not maintainable?

4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties?

5. Is the suit barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

6. Is the suit barred by law of adverse possession?

7. Is the plaintiff not daughter of Bhagmat Majhi?

8. Was Damani the wife of Bhagmat and the plaintiff is their daughter?

9. Was Bhagmat the sole owner of the lands in equation and after his death his widow inherited the lands?

10. Were Balia and Kanda, natural brothers and as such they were jointly living and got the property by law of survivorship after the death of Bhagmat?

11. Has the plaintiff sole right, title and interest over the suit land?

12. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief of reliefs claimed?

13. To what relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled?

5. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in detail, the trial Court found adequate evidence of the plaintiff’s claim of being the daughter of Bhagmat through Damani. It was also found that Damani re-married Dasmat and the defendants were his son. The trial Court further found that Bhagmat was the sole owner of the suit properties and after Damani’s remarriage, plaintiff being the only daughter and heir, succeeded to the same. The plea of adverse possession set up by the defendants was negatived. The sale deeds in q