IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Among Santals, succession law is Hindu Law and not Customary Law.
(2) Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession cannot be maintained in respect to joint and undivided property without partition of that property.

JUDGMENT

A.C. Behera, J.—This second appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The original appellant in this second appeal i.e. Janaki Majhi was the sole defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 and respondent before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1992.

When, during the pendency of this second appeal, the original appellant Janaki Majhi expired, then his LRs have been substituted as appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in his place.

The respondent Nangi Majhiani along with her sister Lakshmi Majhiani were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988.

When, during the pendency of the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988, the Lakshmi Majhiani (plaintiff No.1) expired leaving behind plaintiff No.2 (Nangi Majhiani) as her successor, then the plaintiff No.2 Nangi Majhiani alone prosecuted the suit against the defendant before the Trial Court.

That plaintiff No.2 Nangi Majhiani was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.19 of 1992.

When, during the pendency of the second appeal, the respondent Nangi Majhiani expired, then in her place, Dakhina Hansda has been substituted as respondent.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.29 of 1988 filed by the respondent Nangi Majhiani along with her sister Lakshmi Majhiani against the defendant Janaki Majhi was a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court as per their pleadings was that, their father Janaki Majhi had two wives, namely, Pama and Karmi.

Pama had one daughter, namely, Rukmini through her husband Janaki. Karu is the husband of Rukmini.

The defendant (Janaki Majhi) is the son of Rukmini Majhi through Karu.

The plaintiffs (Lakshmi Majhiani and Nangi Majhiani) are two daughters of Janaki Majhi through his second wife Karmi.

Janaki died in the year 1960 leaving behind his two wives i.e. Pama and Karmi.

The daughter of Pama i.e. Rukmini had predeceased Pama in the year 1958 leaving behind her mother Pama, her husband Karu and her son Janaki Majhi (defendant). The son of Rukmini i.e. Janaki was the sole defendant in the suit vide T.S. No.29 of 1988.

The second wife of Janaki Majhi i.e. Karmi Majhi died in the year 1960 leaving behind her two daughters i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 & 2, namely, Lakshmi Majhiani and Nangi Majhiani.

5. The aforesaid genealogy of the parties stated in the plaint of the plaintiffs is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:-

Genealogy

Janaki Majhi (dead)

=Pama (1st Wife) = Karmi (2nd Wife)

Rukmini (dead)

=Karu (Husband) Nangi (P-2) Lakshmi (P-1)

Janaki (defendant)

6. According to the plaintiffs, they (parties) to the suit are Santal by caste and belong to S.T. community. They are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law, but the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable to them.

The suit properties described in Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint were the properties of their father Janaki Majhi. During last settlement, the said suit properties were recorded exclusively in the name of Janaki Majhi (father of the plaintiffs). After the death of their father Janaki Majhi, they (plaintiffs) and their mother Karmi Majhi inherited the suit properties left by their father Janaki Majhi and divided the said suit properties in three equal shares between them i.e. between Karmi and the plaintiffs equally. On the death of the first wife of their father i.e. Pama Majhi in the year 1983, they (plaintiffs) inherited the entire suit properties of their father Janaki Majhi and became the owners thereof.

During the life time of Pama Majhi, the defendant was looking after the properties, those were under the possession of Pama Majhi. They (plaintiffs) are the illiterate adibasi women and they were depending upon the defendant for looking after their all the affairs. So, taking the advantage of their such illiteracy, the defendant managed to record the suit prop