Order On Board

19.03.2024 1. Heard.

2. This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated

06.02.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.04A/2022 (Dharmawati Netam Vs. Bhupendra Singh Sandilya) by the Additional District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G) whereby, application preferred by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Section

2(2) of the the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ( in short “the Act, 1956”) categorically bars the applicability of the Act, 1956 when the parties are the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause (25) of Article 336 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the OfÏcial Gazette, otherwise directs, therefore, the application is not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act, 1956. As the applicant belongs to the Gond caste, therefore, the trial Court has committed material irregularity and prays to allow the revision and set assigned the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

5. In the matter of Labishwar Manjhi Vs. Pran Manjhi and Others (2000) 8 SCC 587 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1006, the question came for consideration is whether the parties who admittedly belong to the Santhal Tribe are still continuing with their customary tradition or have they after being Hinduised changed their customs to that which is followed by the Hindus. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, analysed the evidence on record and held that though the parties belonged to the Santhal tribe, they followed the customs of Hindus and not of the Santhal tribe. Thus, the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not apply to the parties and the relevant para 6 read thus:

“6.The question which arises in the present case is, whether the parties who admittedly belong to Santhal tribe are still continuing with their customary tradition or have they after being Hinduised changed their customs to that what is followed by the Hindus. It is in this context when the matter came first before the High Court, the High Court remanded the case for decision in this regard. After remand, the first appellate court recorded the findings, that most of the names of the families of the parties are Hindu names. Even PW 1 admits in the cross-examination that they perform the pindas at the time of death of any body. Females do not use vermilion on the forehead after the death of their husbands, widows do not wear ornaments. Even PW 2 admits that they perform shradh ceremonies for 10 days after the death and after marriage, females used vermilion on their foreheads. The finding of the words is that they are following the customs of the Hindus and not of the Santhal customs. In view of such a clear finding it is not possible to hold that sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act excludes the present parties from the application of the said Act. Sub-section (2) only excludes members of any Scheduled Tribe admittedly as per finding recorded in the present case though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribe they are Hinduised and they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that Sub-section (2) will not apply to exclude the parties from application of Hindu Succession Act. The High Court fell into error in recording a finding to the contrary. In view of this, the widow of Lakhiram would become the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act, consequently the gift given by her to Appellants 2 and 3 were valid gift, hence the suit of Respondent No. 1 for setting aside the gift deed and inheritance stand dismissed.”

6. In Satprakash Meena Vs. Alka Meena 2021 SCC OnLine Del

3645 the Delhi High Court observes that there is no definition of Hindu and nothing has been placed that the Meena community tribe has a special