CHUNKU MANJHI Vs. BHABANI MAJHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Bhabani Mejhan, the plaintiff, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the lands in suit. The lands admittedly belong to one Chota Manjhi, Chota. Manjhi's only issue, a daughter by name; Darani Mejhan, predeceased him. He died leaving a widow by name Churamani Mejhan. The plaintiff is the daughter of Darani Mejhan. The plaintiff had a brother Chandra. Manjhi who is dead, Churamani Mejhan continued in possession of the property after the death of her husband till she died in the month of saban 1347. She executed a deed of gift in respect of a part of the property in favour of the present plaintiff who is her daughter's daughter. On her death, the properties in disputes were taken possession of by the defendants who are separated agnate of the last male holder Chota Manjhi. They claim themselves to be his heirs to the exclusion of the plaintiff, who, according to them, is not an heir.

(2.) Out of the four agnates impleaded as defendants, defendants 3 and 4 filed a written statement supporting the plaintiff's claim. Defendants 1 and 2 contest the suit and they are the appellants in this Court. The plaintiff bases her title as an heir of the last male holder of the property being his daughter's daughter on the ground that the parties are Hindus and in matters of sue-cession and inheritance, they are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law as amended by Act 2 [II] of 1929. She also says that by tribal customs too she is the heir. Her case is set out inpara. 5 of the plaint, which reads: Churamani Mejhan died in the month of Srawan 1347 and the properties in Schedule ka were in her possession. After the death of Churamani the plaintiff being the daughter's daughter of Chotu Manjhi is the sole heir, and has got absolute interest in the Schedule ka properties by inheritance. The Santhals of the country follow the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, and apart from this, the plaintiff is also the heir of Chotu Manjhi according to tribal custom as well.

(3.) In reply to this, defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement para. 4 pleaded: These defendants submit that the parties are governed by the Dayabhag school of Hindu law, and. all their acts are done under the said system of Hindu law. According to neither school of Hindu law can the daughter be an heir of any means. The plaintiff's statements are against the law and are liable to be rejected.