The court reaffirmed the principle that rightful ownership and possession of ancestral property can be determined based on historical records and applicable customary laws, which may exclude female heirs.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant Nos.1 to 5 before the Trial Court in the suit, vide T.S. No.46 of 1996 and appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999.

The respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this 2^nd appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.46 of 1996 and respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999.

The respondent Nos.3 to 8 in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant Nos.6 to 11 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S.46 of 1996 and respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.52 of 1999.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 & 2 in this 2^nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S.46 of 1996 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction, for correction of names of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 from the R.o.R. and in alternative recovery of possession, if they (plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit.

4. The properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint are the suit properties.

5. As per the case of the plaintiffs, one Jasmi Majhi was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs. The said Jasmi Majhi was the wife of Khela Majhi.

Jasmi Majhi died leaving behind her one daughter and one son i.e. Suna and Bangi (defendant No.8).

Suna died leaving behind his two sons and three daughters i.e. Khela (plaintiff No.1), Bhutlang (plaintiff No.2), Jasmi (defendant No.9), Rabi (defendant No.10) and Budhuni (defendant No.11).

6. In order to have a better appreciation, the family pedigree (genealogy) of the plaintiffs as given in the plaint is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:

7. The husband of Jasmi i.e. Khela predeceased Jasmi. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.9, 10 & 11 have born out of the wedlock of Jasmi and Khela. After the death of Khela, Jasmi had illicit relationship with one Singrai of the same village. Jasmi predeceased Singrai. Thereafter, Singrai married to one Sunia.

The defendant Nos.1 to 7 had born through Sunia (defendant No.5) and Singrai.

8. In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy about the relationship between Sunia, Singrai and defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 given in the plaint is also depicted hereunder:

9. The mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Jasmi Majhi was the owner of the suit properties i.e. the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint and the said properties were recorded in her name exclusively in the previous settlements of the years 1913 & 1948 respectively.

After the death of Jasmi, the suit properties left by her (Jasmi) devolved upon her son Suna Majhi exclusively and Suna possessed the suit properties being the exclusive owner thereof. Because, Bangi being the daughter of Jasmi had no right of succession due to the bar of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as they belong to Scheduled Tribe Community.

10. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that, they (plaintiffs) being Santals, they are guided under old Hindu Law. For which, for the purpose of inheritance and succession, The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to them. Therefore, daughters of Suna i.e. sis