LALU CHIK BARAIK Vs. MUNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1993 by learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C. II), Gumla affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.12.1992 in Title Suit No. 249 of 1988/99 of 1986 passed by Munsif, Gumla.

(2.) MR . Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below is wrong. The plaintiff-appellant filed the said suit for declaration that the deed of sale bearing No. 2376 dated 4.11.1986 is illegal, farzi and void and not binding on him and upon the proforma defendant No. 4. Declaration of title and possession were also sought. Alternatively, relief was sought for obtaining possession over the suit land in case, the plaintiff and proforma defendant were not found in possession. According to the plaintiff, the suit land remained joint and there was no partition; and that the parties being "Chik Baraik" by caste are governed by their own customary law, according to which the daughters and females are debarred from inheritance; and they have got right of maintenance only, and accordingly Most. Jharia Baraikin (defendant No. 2), widow of late Ram Baraik has got no title over the ancestral property and she has no power to alienate the lands. Further according to the plaintiff, the entry made in the Khatiyan regarding caste is incorrect and the parties are aboriginal and were not Hindus, and that the deed executed by Most. Jharia Baraikin (defendant No. 2) in favour of defendant No. 1 was a farzi sale deed. 4. The defendants controverted the claims and allegations of the plaintiffs. 5. The parties led documentary and oral evidences. It was found that apparently there were two types of writings in the Caste certificate issued by the B. D. O., Sisai; and that there was no consistency regarding entry of caste in the Zamindari rent receipts. It was further held that it was established that entry made in the column of caste as "Yadubansi Chhatri" is conclusive evidence and accordingly it was held that the plaintiff and his family members are "Yadubansi Chhatri"and not "Chik Baraik" and they are not members of Schedule Tribes. It was also held that the entry made in the revisional survey regarding the caste of the parties is correct. It was further held that the plaintiff was not a member of Schedule Tribe and therefore not capable of bringing the suit and he had got no right to interfere with the transaction of Most. Jharia Baraikin who was holding the share of her husband in the property. It was also found that the evidences adduced on behalf of the respondents were stronger evidence. The sale deed in question was declared to be legal and binding on the plaintiff. 6. The appellant filed the said appeal. After hearing the parties and considering the points raised in support of the appeal, the learned lower appellate court considering the evidences on record and affirmed the findings of trial court by holding that Most. Jharia Baraikin got her separate share in the land to the extent of 1/3rd share left by her husband and since after his death, she had right to transfer the land. It was also found that the land was not joint and the three shares had been partitioned by metes and bounds prior to the execution of the sale deed in question. It was further held that the parties were not Scheduled Tribes, rather they are "Yadubansi Chhatri" and as per the documentary evidences available on record, it was mentioned every where that the parties were "Yadubansi Chhatri"; who were governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. 7. I find no reason to interfere with the said concurrent findings of fact arrived by the learned courts below correctly on the basis of the evidences on record. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. However, no costs. Appeal Dismissed.