MARIUM TIGGA AND ORS. Vs. MICHEL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code(for short C.P.C.) has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2015 whereby the learned Sub -Judge -I., Ranchi rejected the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., filed by the petitioner in Title Suit No. 156/2014, for rejection of the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case as per the pleadings is that plaintiffs/O.Ps. and the defendants/petitioners are by caste Oraon of Schedule Tribe community and they are governed by the customary law of their community in the matter of succession and inheritance and as per the customary law if tribal Oraon dies without any male issue then the widow and unmarried daughter if any, are entitled to maintenance out of the usufruct of the landed property of the deceased so long the widow is alive and does not remarry and so long the daughter is not married. After the death or remarriage of the widow and after the marriage of unmarried daughter the immovable properties of the deceased male Oraon will devolve upon his nearest male agnates. It is averred that the land of khata No. 129 situated at village -Argora, Ranchi was recorded in the revisional survey in the record of right in the names of Paulus Oraon and Patras Oraon having equal share. That Paulus Oraon had filed Partition Suit No. 29 of 1975 against his brother Patras Oraon for partition of half of his share in the lands of khata Nos. 129, 275 and 401. A decree of partition was passed on 24.04.1983 in the aforesaid suit whereby the lands described in the Schedule of the plaint were allotted to the takhta of Paulus Oraon and delivery of possession of the suit property was given to him vide Execution Case No. 1/1984. That Paulus Oraon died on 19.07.1994 without any male issue leaving behind his married daughter, namely, Marium Tigga @ Marium Raha (defendant No. 1). As per the customary law since Paulus Oraon died without any male issue his brother, Patras Oraon inherited the property of Paulus Oraon and continued in possession in assertion of his own right and remained in possession during his life time and after his demise plaintiff No. 1 along with plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 as the heirs of Patras Oraon inherited the same and came into joint possession of the suit land and are still continuing in joint possession thereof. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs are the surviving nearest male agnates of late Paulus Oraon and are entitled to hold and possess the suit land.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel on behalf of Opposite parties/plaintiffs has submitted that the plaint has to be considered in its entirety and in the present case the petitioners have made out a case that they are in possession of the property and they have prayed for confirmation of the possession as well as recovery of possession if they are found to have been dispossessed from the suit property. The plaintiffs have also prayed for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. That the plaint is based on several cause of action. While relying and referring to the decision reported in : (1998) 7 SCC 184 and : (1999) 3 SCC 267, it is argued that it is settled principle that plaint cannot be rejected by dissecting it into several parts.