ASHOK KUMAR Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of about 35 bighas of land, being western half, comprised within Jamabandi No. 64 situate in Mauza Manikdih within Raneshwar police station in the district of Santhal Parganas was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred against that decree, but the same was dismissed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Dumka, Santhal Parganas. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed.

(2.) It is not in dispute that one Herma Hembrom was the recorded tenant of Jamabandi No. 64 of village Manikdih, who died leaving behind his two sons, Churka Hembrom and Chandra Mohan Hembrom. Churka Hembrom died in state of jointness with his brother Chandra Mohan Hembrom and his son Rameshwar Hembrom (the original plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by the present appellants). The plaintiffs say that Rameshwar Hembrom was joint with his uncle Chandra Mohan Hembrom, who died leaving behind his daughter Rani Hembrom, who was married to one Anand Tudu and she was living with her husband at village Tarni. According to the plaintiffs, the interest of Chandra Mohan Hembrom on his death devolved upon Rameshwar Hembrom and Rani Hembrom (defendant No. 1) her sons did not get any right to the property left by Chandra Mohan Hembrom as they were governed by the Santhal customary law in the matter of inheritance and succession. Further, the case of the plaintiff-appellants was that the defendant-respondents, namely, Rani Hembrom and her son set up a false claim to half of the land in suit on the basis of an amicable partition between Chandra Mohan Hembrom and Churka Hembrom. It is said that the dispute between the parties led to a proceeding under S.145 of the Criminal P.C. which was decided against the plaintiffs on 1-9-1969. After that decision, the plaintiffs say, they were dispossessed which necessitated filing of the suit giving rise to this appeal.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. Their main defence was that there was a partition between Churka Hembrom and Chandra Mohan Hembrom and as a result of that partition the land in suit fell to the share of Chandra Mohan Hembrom. Further their defence was that Rani Hembrom, defendant No. 1, was married in customary Gharjamai form. It is said that according to the custom amongst the Santhals, if the marriage is in Gharjamai form then the son-in-law severs all connections with his natural parents and becomes the adopted son of his father-in-law. It is said that according to the custom the Gharjamai inherits the father-in-law. Further it is said that the suit lands which were allotted to Chandra Mohan Hembrom on partition were being cultivated by Chandra Mohan Hembrom himself and after the marriage of Rani Hembrom her Gharjamai husband used to cultivate them.