RAFAIL URAON Vs. BAIHA URAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, who had brought a suit for recovery of possession of certain land, are the appellants. Their case was that the lands in suit belonged to one Mangra Uraon, who died leaving a widow, Pandro, and two daughters, who were married to defendant No. 1 one after the other. When Mangra died, he was succeeded by his widow, Pandro and the latter died leaving the two daughters aforesaid and the son-in-law. It appears that Pandro had executed a deed of sale in respect of the properties in question in favour of the son-in-law, defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs, along with defendant No. 2, claimed agnatic relations of Mangra, and their case was that the parties are governed by the tribal custom inasmuch as they are not Hindus, and, as such, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are the heirs of Mangra and not the daughters.

(2.) The defence, with which we are concerned, was that defendant No. 1 had taken the properties on transfer on behalf of his son and his wife; that there is no custom entitling the agnatic relations to get possession of the properties as heirs of the deceased in presence of the daughters and the daughter's son; that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are not the heirs of Mangra, and that Mangra was governed by the Hindu law of inheritance.

(3.) The trial Court held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, being the nearest agnates after the death of Mangra's widow, were the rightful heirs of Mangra; and in that view of the matter, the suit was decreed.