HEMA MAJHI AND ORS. Vs. DUBRAJ MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in T.S. No. 3 of 1984 have filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1988 and 13.05.1988 passed by learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Rairangpur.

(2.) THE suit was filed for decree of partition in respect of schedule 'A' land. The case of the plaintiffs as revealed from the plaint is that plaintiff No. 1, namely, Kala @ Nuna Majhi is the son of late Dubraj Majhi through his first wife, namely, Basi. Plaintiff No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of said Dubraj Majhi through his second wife, namely, Kapura. Defendant No. 3 is the widow of late Laxman Majhi, one of the sons of late Dubraj Majhi through his second wife. Laxman Majhi died in the year 1980 leaving behind defendant No. 3 and daughter namely, Kapura. One Hema Majhi was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants. The suit land was recorded in his name in the 1927 Settlement. On the death of Hema Majhi, plaintiffs inherited and possessed the suit land. After the death of Hema, the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No. 3 possessed Schedule -'A' land according to their convenience with an understanding that they would record partition of the suit land during Settlement operation. Schedule -'C' property was exclusively recorded in the name of plaintiff No. 1, which was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff No. 1, namely, Basi from her Stridhan, which she acquired by working at the tea garden in Assam. Thus, Schedule -'C' land is not the joint family property. The Settlement operation commenced in the Sub -Division in the year 1981 and thus, as per their understanding, the plaintiffs in the month of Magha, 1982 requested defendants 1 and 2 for a partition of the suit land. But they did not pay any heed to it. In May, 1983, defendants 1 and 2 tried to dispossess the plaintiffs out of the suit land for which a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr.P.C. was initiated by the local Police and a proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr.P.C. was also filed in the Court of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rairangpur. In the said proceeding, the defendant No. 1 filed his written statement disputing the status of the plaintiff No. 1. He alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 is a stranger to the family having no right, title or interest over the suit property. He is not the son of Dubraj Majhi. In view of the above, the plaintiffs had no other option but to file the suit.

(3.) THE defendants filed their written statement jointly denying the averments made in the plaint and also challenged the maintainability of the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs. They contended that the plaintiffs neither have any locus standi nor any cause of action to file the suit. They also challenged the maintainability of the suit on several other grounds. It is the case of the defendants that one Dhama Majhi, son of Bishu Majhi of village Kudahansa, was working at tea garden in Assam. During his stay in Assam, he married to one Pungi Majhi. The mother of the plaintiff No. 1, namely, Basi was the sister of said Pungi. Basi was also working at the tea garden in Assam. Her husband was a man of Assam. Due to disturbance in between the Management and the workers of the tea garden said Dhama Majhi came back to his native place with his wife. By that time, the husband of Basi was dead. So she also accompanied said Dhama with the plaintiff No. 1. They stayed at the house of said Dhama Majhi. Basi used to earn her livelihood by doing household works of different persons in the village. Subsequently, she constructed a house in the village on the land of one Sitaram Majhi, who was also related to said Dhama. Defendants admitted the 'C' schedule land to be the self -acquired property of Basi. Thus, said Basi, the mother of plaintiff No. 1, was not the wife of Dubraj. Neither the plaintiff No. 1 nor the plaintiff No. 2 was related to said Dubraj or his family. They have never stayed in the house of the defendants. They are completely strangers to the family. Defendants also filed additional written statement contending that Sitaram Majhi acquired some land at Kinjirminjir of Singbhum district in Jharkhand State and resided there. Thus, he left house and homestead in the charge of Dhama Majhi. Dhama Majhi allowed the mother of plaintiff -1, Basi to stay on the said land by constructing a house thereon. They contended that the plaintiffs are neither related to their father, namely, Dubraj nor they have any right, title or interest over the suit land. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.