IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 12 of 2021

1. Patwari Murmu, aged about 60 years, son of Late Dhani Murmu.

2. Sonalal Murmu, aged about 48 years.

3. Tala Murmu, aged about 45 years. 4. Jetan Murmu, aged about 42 years.

Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are son of Late Nayaki Murmu.

All are resident of Village: Amjhor, Post Office & Police Station:

Boarijore, District: Godda.

… … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus Munilal Murmu, son of Mangal Murmu, Resident of Village:

Amjhor, Post Office & Police Station: Boarijore, District: Godda.

… … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumal Sah, Advocate For the Respondents :

---

14/05.01.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 (decree signed on 18.03.2020) passed by learned District Judge-I, Godda in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019 upholding the judgment dated 12.12.2018 (decree signed on 08.01.2019) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Godda in Title Suit No. 44 of

2005.

3. The title suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment and decree passed in title suit was affirmed by the learned 1^st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit property involved in this case is ancestral property which was recorded in the name of Pandu Murmu and Bali Murmu and Chhota Karan Murmu (died issueless) therefore, the interest of Chhota Karan Murmu devolved upon the remaining two recorded tenants. The learned counsel submits that son of Bala Murmu namely Khare Murmu died issueless and consequently, as per the case of the plaintiffs, the entire interest devolved upon Pandu Murmu and the plaintiffs are the descendants of Pandu Murmu. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs had sought a declaration of the right, title and interest with respect to the suit property and also sought a declaration that the registered adoption deed dated 16.11.1978/18.12.1978 allegedly executed by Khare Murmu adopting the sole defendant namely Muni Lal Murmu, was null and void.

5. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs came to know for the first time that the defendant was claiming the property when in the year 2005 one camp was organized for correction in the record of rights. The learned counsel submits that both the plaintiffs and defendants had approached the authority for entry of their names in the record of rights and then the suit was filed in the year 2005.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the parties belonging to Santhal tribe and they are governed by customary law of Santhals and accordingly the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not applicable. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there is no concept of adoption under Santhal tribe and otherwise also the process of handing over and taking over of the defendant by his adoptive father Kahre Murmu has not been proved and therefore, the so-called adoption as claimed by the defendant was null and void, even if the claim of the defendant was based on a registered deed of adoption.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the courts and further the courts have also held that the suit was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs came to know about the deed of adoption for the first time in the year 2005 and they filed the suit in 2005 itself and therefore, the finding of the learned court that the suit was barred by limitation is itself perverse and it calls for interference by framing a substantial question of law.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied