DELHO HANSDA Vs. CHARANI HANSDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the application have been filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that She being the daughter of one Meraha Hansdan is the only heir of her deceased lather and also prayed for recovery of possession of the lands mentioned in the plaint. A prayer lor mesne profits was also made. Her case is that her father, who will hereafter be mentioned as Moraha, had three wives only, and he had seven daughters by the three wives. The other daughters have been made defendants 2nd party. Moraha had no son, and, in view of the Santhal laws and custom, he got the plaintiff married to one Mandal Murmu in 'ghar jamai' form, and since the marriage, which happened twenty years before the date of the suit, Manual Murmu had been living there as 'gharjamai'. Moraha died in 1350 B. S., and after his death, plaintiff's husband had been appointed the Prodhan of the village, a post which was held until death by Moraha. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant 1 Charani Hansda had been illegally interfering with her possession which led to a criminal case and it ended in conviction of Charani Hansda under Section 447, Penal Code, in the trial Court, but he was acquitted by the appellate Court. Emboldened by the decision in the criminal case, defendant 1 is said to have dispossessed the plaintiff from these lands.

(3.) Defendants second party, the other daughters of Moraha, did not contest the suit, but they supported the plaintiff's case. Defendant 1 Cbarani Hansda claimed to be the son of Moraha, and denied the fact that the plaintiff was married with Mandal Murmu in 'gharjamai' form. He claimed possession over the lands from even during the life time of his father Moraha. The following issues were framed in the case: