BUDHISAL MURMU Vs. SOM SOREN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, the plaintiff -appellant -appellant has sought to challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 56/73 seeking a decree declaring his right, title and interest and recovery of possession of the suit property being jamabandi No. 22 of village Jhunki, P.S. Sikaripara, district Dumka. The case of the plaintiff is that the parties are by caste Santhal and they are governed by their customary law. The suit land was recorded in the name of Matla Murmu @ Bhoju, who had one son Indira @ Barka Murmu, who died during the lifetime of his father leaving behind his widow. The wife of Barka Murmu left the house for good and later on died. Matla had one daughter, namely, Raria @ Munni Murmu. She was forcibly taken away by one Mangal Soren for marriage. They lived like wife and husband and two daughters and one son were born. Under Santhal Customary law, the heirs of the recorded tenant Matla are entitled to inherit the suit land and the daughters of her son are not entitled to succeed or inherit the property. The said land was possessed by the plaintiff, but the village pradhan handed over the possession to some other villagers. The plaintiff No. 2, thereafter, filed a Revenue Misc. Case No. 172 / 72 -73 for restoration of possession of suit land from Kaila Mian. The S.D.O., Dumka rejected the plaintiff's petition and defendants and others were allowed to retain possession illegally.

(2.) THE defendants appeared and contested the suit. It was, inter alia, pleaded that Mangal Murmu married Dhangi Tudu in Gharjamai form. The said Mangal Murmu became entitled to inherit the property of his father -in -law and accordingly, the defendants inherited the property and they have been coming in possession of the suit land.

(3.) THE plaintiffs then filed a regular appeal being title appeal No. 42/77 in the court of District Judge, Dumka. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the 3rd District and Sessions Judge, Dumka. The lower appellate court also considered and discussed the facts, evidences on record and the customary law under which the parties are governed and came to the specific finding that Raria was married to Mangal Soren in 'Gharjamai' form and as there was no son from Matla, said Mangal Soren inherited the property and the defendants being the sons of the said Mangal Soren inherited the suit land. Learned lower appellate court has thus concurred with the said finding of fact and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.