Manjhlu Manjhi, son of late Somar Manjhi, resident of Village –Digree, P.O. & P.S v. 1. Sabir Mian 2. Amtul Mian Both sons of Late Guhi Mian, resident of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.496 of 2016 ------ Manjhlu Manjhi, son of late Somar Manjhi, resident of Village –Digree, P.O. & P.S. –Govindpur, District -Dhanbad .... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff .... …. Versus 1. Sabir Mian 2. Amtul Mian Both sons of Late Guhi Mian, resident of Village –Pandania, P.O. & P.S. –Barwa-Adda, District –Dhanbad. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. –Dhanbad, District –Dhanbad. ... .... …. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants For the Appellant For the Respondents ------ : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, AC to SC Mines-I ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2 This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of concurrence dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned District Judge- IX, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 42 of 2007 whereby and where
Legal Reasoning
under, the learned first appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Munsif-II, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 89 of 2000 dated 22.02.2007 and dismissed the appeal on contest. 3 The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs- appellants filed Title Suit No. 89 of 2000 with a prayer for decree of declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 and his men, agents 1 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and cost of the suit. 4 The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land originally belonged to Mangal Manjhi and stood recorded in his name in the last Survey Settlement Record of Right. Mangal Manjhi died 50 years before filing this suit issueless leaving behind his sister Sukurmani Manjhian. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Sukurmani Manjhaian. After the death of Mangal Manjhi, Sukurmani Manjhian continued to be in possession of the suit land. The suit property came into possession of the plaintiffs by way of inheritance. The plaintiffs are paying land revenue to the State of Bihar. The defendant no.1 being a shrewd litigant by manipulating and fabricating documents has managed to obtain some favourable order and obtained Parcha in the recent Survey Settlement behind the back of the plaintiffs. The defendant has got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The defendants wanted to forcibly oust the plaintiffs from the suit land, hence the plaintiffs filed the suit. 5 The defendant no. 1 in his written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. The defendant no.2 did not file any written statement and he was debarred by the court from filing written statement. In his written statement, the defendant no.1 further pleaded that at the time of the death of Mangal Manjhi, the Schedule A land of the plaint was not in his possession as during his lifetime, he surrendered the land to the landlord. Female heirs of Scheduled 2 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 Tribes have got no right of inheritance. Therefore, the question of Sukurmani Manjhaian inheriting the property of Mangal Manjhi does not arise. After the death of Mangal Manjhi, the ex-landlord became the absolute owner of the suit land. The defendant further pleaded that the property of Mangal Manjhi including the suit property reverted to the sons of the brother of Mangal Manjhi. Mangal Manjhi was a Santhal and was guided by the conventional customs and usages of Santhals. Neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors were in possession of the suit land. The defendant no.1 further pleaded that the heirs of ex-landlord executed a deed of sale bearing no. 2407 dated 14.04.1959 in favour of Ali Mian, Mohari Mian and the defendant no.1 but the plaintiffs have not impleaded Ali Mian, Mohari Mian or their heirs as parties to the suit, even though they are necessary parties to the suit. 6 On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following eight issues:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in present form? (ii) (iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppel, waiver Is there any cause of action for the present suit? and acquiescence? (iv) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of C.N.T. Act? (v) Whether the plaintiffs or their ancestors in –interest had been sufficiently Hinduised so as to attract the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? (vi) Have the plaintiffs got title and possession over the suit lands and if they are found in possession have got entitled a confirmation of possession on the same? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land? (viii) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? 7 In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined altogether four witnesses and proved the document which has been marked Ext. 1. On the other hand from the side of the 3 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 defendants, the defendants examined altogether three witnesses and also proved the documents which have been marked Ext. A to C. 8 The learned trial court first took up issue nos. (v), (vi) and (vii) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that since the plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor led any evidence to the effect that they are Hinduised prior to commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and were following the Hindu Traditions in the matter of succession. So after the death of Mangal Manjhi, the property of Mangal Manjhi has reverted to the brother of Mangal Manjhi and his sons and not to the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs does not have any right, title and interest over the suit land. The learned trial court also considered that since the defendant no.1 has taken inconsistent plea and further the defendant no.1 could not produce any document to show surrender of the land by Mangal Manjhi in favour of the ex- landlord. So the defendant no.1 has also not acquired any title or interest over the suit land and by thus considering the materials in the record found that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case that their ancestor in interest namely Mangal Manjhi was sufficiently Hinduised, so as to attract the provisions of Hindu Succession Act in the matter of succession. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of declaration of title or confirmation of possession over the suit land and answered the issues in the negative. The learned trial court next took up issue nos. (iii) and (iv) together and disposed of the same as not 4 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 pressed. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue nos. (i), (ii) & (viii) together and held that the suit is not maintainable in its present form, there is no valid cause of action for the present suit and the plaintiffs are not entitled to decree as claimed for in the suit and dismissed the suit on contest. 9 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.42 of 2007 in the court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 10 The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considered that the plaintiffs failed to produce any documents to show that after death of Mangal Manjhi, it was Sukarmani Manjhian who inherited the entire property left by Mangal Manjhi who was her brother nor the plaintiffs could produce any chit of paper to the effect that the suit land and the other properties were entered in the name of Sukarmani Manjhian after the death of Mangal Manjhi. The rent receipts were standing in the name of Mangal Manjhi. Exhibit -1 which is the certified copy of Cadastral Survey Khatiyan also standing in the name of Mangal Manjhi. The plaintiffs failed to establish that Mangal Manjhi was sufficiently Hinduised to enable inheritance of his properties by his sister Sukarmani Manjhian and went on to hold that there is no illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif-II, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 89 of 2000 dated 22.02.2007 and dismissed the 5 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. 11 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in their right perspective. It is next submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence in the record put forth by the plaintiffs and the undisputed fact that the ancestor of the plaintiffs namely Sukarmani Manjhian was the sister of Mangal Manjhi, both the courts below ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It is next submitted that both the courts below failed to apply the provisions of Hindu Succession Act in respect of the inheritance by the plaintiffs in view of categorical pleading by the plaintiffs that Mangal Manjhi was Hindu for all purposes. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law. 12 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that Mangal Manjhi was a Santhal and obviously member of a Scheduled Tribe. In view of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 which reads as under:- 2. Application of Act - (1) XXXXX 6 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. It is crystal clear that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall not apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette otherwise directs. It is needless to mention that the Central Government by any notification in the Official Gazette so far has not directed application of Hindu Succession Act to the Members of Scheduled Tribes. 13 It is a settled principle of law that in a given case if the parties have become Hinduised and changed their custom to that as followed by Hindu, they can be entitled to be put under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Others, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 587, but such fact has to be pleaded specifically. 14 Now coming to the facts of the case, the plaintiffs have only pleaded that Mangal Manjhi was Hindu for all purposes but there is no specific pleading that Mangal Manjhi and the ancestor of the plaintiffs namely Sukarmani Manjhian who is the sister of Mangal Manjhi were Hinduised and changed their customs to that as followed by Hindus. In absence of this specific pleading or any evidence to that effect, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below by holding that in view of the admitted fact that the 7 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016 Mangal Manjhi was a Santhal, the property vested upon him reverted to the brother of Mangal Manjhi and his sons. Since, it has rightly been held that the property of Mangal Manjhi has reverted to his brother and sons of his brother upon death of Mangal Manjhi, so obviously the ancestor of the plaintiffs namely Sukarmani Manjhian was not having any right, title and interest over the suit land. Thus, this Court do not find any perversity in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right, title interest over the suit land and on the failure of the plaintiffs to do so, the obvious result was that the suit has to be dismissed and the same has been rightly dismissed. So this Court do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below nor there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 15 Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances, without any costs. 16 Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th November, 2024 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- 8 Second Appeal No. 496 of 2016