Mansingh Marandi vs Kamoli Murmu
2025 Latest Caselaw 5584 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mansingh Marandi vs Kamoli Murmu on 9 September, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                           2025:JHHC:27320




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          S.A. No. 68 of 2019

        Mansingh Marandi, Aged about 55 years, son of Late Somai Marandi
        resident of Village- Radhamath, P.O. J. Khairboni, P.S. Fatehpur
        (Kundahit) S.D., District- Jamtara (Jharkhand)
                           ...      ...     Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
                                  Versus
        1. Kamoli Murmu, Widow of Gunshi Marandi, resident of village-
           Radhamath, P.S. Fatehpur, P.O. J. Khairboni, S.D. & District-
           Jamtara.
        2. Bahadi Marandi, W/o Rabilal Murmu & D/o Genesh Marandi,
           resident of village Pindari (Sitla), P.O.- Pindari, P.S.- Masalia,
           District Dumka.
        3. Balika Marandi, W/o. Sanatan Murmu & D/o Ganesh Marandi,
           resident of village- Ghoradoha, P.O. Bagdahari, P.S. Palajori,
           District Deoghar.
        4. Nilodi Marandi, W/o Nageshwar Murmu, D/o Ganesh Marandi,
           resident of village- Banskupi, P.O. Banskupi, P.S. Palajori,
           District- Deoghar.
           ... ...           Plaintiffs/Respondents (First Party)/Respondents
           (First Party)

     5. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. + P.S. & District- Jamtara.
                                            ...       ...       Defendant
     6. Bablu Marandi @ Bhatar Marandi, S/o Late Labe Marandi
     7. Bhero Marandi @ Bhatar Marandi, S/o Late Laba Marandi
     8. Somnath Marandi, S/o Late Peru Marandi @ Chhotu Marandi
     9. Lakhiram Marandi, S/o Late Peru Marandi @ Chhotu Marandi
     10.Lakhiram Marandi, S/o Late Som Marandi
     11.Bhola Marandi, S/o Late Baidyanath Marandi
     12.Budhan Marandi, S/o Late Rasilal @ Dhudhum Marandi
     13.Muril Marandi, S/o Late Bhiku Marandi
     14.Sriganesh Marandi, S/o Late Bhiku Marandi
     15.Barku Marandi, S/o Late Hopna Marandi
     16.Iswar Marandi, S/o Late Hopna Marandi
     17.Bhuja Marandi, S/o Late Hopna Marandi
     18.Bagru Marandi, S/o Late Hopna Marandi
     19.Mahesh Marandi, S/o Late Pando Marandi
     20.Mahilal Marandi, S/o Late Pando Marandi
     All resident of Village- Radhamath, P.O. J. Khairboni, P.S. Fatehpur
     (Kundahit) S.D. and district - Jamtara (Jharkhand).
                  ...        ...        Defendants/Appellants/Respondents
                               ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate 2025:JHHC:27320

---

13/09.09.2025 This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 (decree signed on 20.08.2018) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Jamtara in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2018 whereby the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018 (decree signed on 19.01.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamtara in Title (partition) Suit No. 27 of 2011.The defendant no. 1 is the appellant before this Court.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that initially partition suit was filed by Gunshi Marandi primarily against his brother seeking partition of the suit property and he claimed a preliminary decree of 1/4th share in the suit property. However, during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff expired and he was substituted by his widow and three daughters. The original plaintiff did not have any son.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the parties belong to Santhal community and as per customary law of Santhals, the daughters/widow are not entitled to any share in the ancestral property. He has submitted that in spite of this fact, the learned court has decreed the suit and found that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/4th share in the suit properties. The learned Senior counsel submits that the decree was passed primarily on the ground that the parties were sufficiently Hinduized, but no such issue was framed by the learned trial court and accordingly, the finding of the learned trial court that the parties were sufficiently Hinduized was beyond the frame of the suit. He submits that the parties belong to Santhal Tribe and are guided by customary law of Santhals and in view of section 2(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the provision of the said Act does not apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause 25 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.

2025:JHHC:27320

4. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that no notification as such has been issued by the Central Government to include Santhal Tribe to be governed by Hindu Succession Act and accordingly, no such notification was exhibited before the learned courts and therefore, the parties are governed by customary law applicable to Santhals and hence, allocation of any share of the suit property to the widow and three daughters of the original plaintiff is not in accordance with law. He submits that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned 1st appellate court.

5. After hearing the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that it is not in dispute from the side of the appellant that the original plaintiff was Gunshi Marandi and he had filed a suit seeking partition to the extent of 1/4th share of the suit property. However, he expired during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by his widow and three daughters.

6. The specific case of the original plaintiff was that except proforma defendant, the parties are Santhal by caste but with the passage of time, both the parties have adopted Hindu laws and customs and, in this way, they have become Hinduized. It was also the case of the original plaintiff that the land relating to Jamabandi No. 25 of Mouza Radhamath was recorded in the name of Baidyanath Marandi and others in the last survey settlement. The plots mentioned in schedule - A were recorded in separate Dakhalkiyari of Baidyanath Marandi and Samai Marandi and some of the plots of Khata No. 25 were recorded in the name of Baidyanath Marandi, Bariyar Marandi and Sobha Marandi and these lands were mentioned in schedule-A/1. In schedule A/2, two tanks were mentioned which were jointly recorded in the name of Baidyanath Marandi, Somai Marandi and Sobha Marandi. The land in connection with Jamabandi No. 72 of Mouza Jamjuri was mentioned in schedule - B of the plaint and was also recorded in the name of Baidyanath Marandi and Somai Marandi. There was another schedule i.e., schedule - C with respect to trees, Bamboo clumps, ancient houses and ancestral properties of the

2025:JHHC:27320

plaintiffs and defendants. The genealogical table was also provided in the plaint and it was recorded that the original plaintiff Gunshi Marandi was represented through his legal heirs and was son of Samai Marandi and defendant no. 1 Mansingh was another son of Samai Marandi and own brother of Gunshi Marandi. The entire genealogical table was stated and as per the plaint, cause of action arose when the original plaintiff came to know that the defendant no. 1 had started dominating the family and tried to misappropriate some joint family properties.

7. The defendant no. 1 filed his written statement but so far as other defendants are concerned, they did not file their written statement and by order dated 07.03.2013, the defendant nos. 2 to 18 were debarred from filing their written statement.

8. The specific case of the defendant no. 1 was that the suit was not maintainable and he had admitted that the parties are Santhal by caste.

9. The learned trial court also recorded that the fact of becoming Hinduized of both the parties was disputed. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

"1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

2. Is there any valid cause of action for the suit?

3. Is there any unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit land?

4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

5. Are the plaintiffs entitled for relief or reliefs as claimed for?"

10. While deciding issue no. (3) and issue no. (5) the learned trial court took note that the factum of becoming Hinduized by both the parties was a disputed fact and so, it was to be decided on the basis of the materials available on record, particularly the evidence of the oral witnesses who were examined on behalf of the defendants. The learned trial court recorded that defendant no. 1 namely, Mansingh who was examined as D.W. 1, in paragraph 18 of his cross-

2025:JHHC:27320

examination, has stated that at the time of marriage, vermilion is put and in case of death of husband, it is washed. Similarly, other witnesses were also examined who accepted the fact that they have adopted Hindu Customs. The learned trial court came to a finding that from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant no. 1, it was clear that both the parties are Santhals by caste and they are guided by Hindu Customary law and the moment it is proved and established that the parties are guided by Hindu Customary law, Hindu law of partition would be applicable.

11. Thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded to partition the property amongst the parties and allocated 1/4th share to the plaintiffs.

12. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the learned court framed the following points for consideration and adjudication:

"(i) whether the plaintiffs/respondents are Hinduised Santhals or not?

(ii) Are the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for their shares in the suit property or not?"

13. The learned 1st appellate court also scrutinized the materials on record and came to a finding that the Santhal female cannot inherit her father's property and provision of Hindu Succession Act will not apply to her, but the Santhal female will certainly inherit her father's property if they have adopted Hindu custom and have converted themselves into Hinduized Santhals. Thereafter, the learned Court proceeded to decide the aforesaid points for determination.

14. The learned 1st appellate court considered the materials on record and referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 8 SCC 587 (Labishwar Manjhi Vs. Pran Manjhi and others) and observed that it has been held in the said case that the Santhal female is excluded from right of succession and if there is evidence on the records that parties are Hinduized Santhals, adopting name, custom and tradition of Hindus, the provision of Hindu Succession Act will not apply to exclude the parties from application of Hindu Succession Act. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that there was enough evidence in support of the fact

2025:JHHC:27320

that the parties have adopted Hindu Customs and they are Hinduized Santhals and held that the parties could not be excluded from the application of Hindu Succession Act. Ultimately, the learned Court was of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the judgment.

15. This Court finds that although the learned trial court has not framed a separate issue as to whether the parties were sufficiently Hinduized, but the parties had joined issue in their evidences and arguments on the point as to whether they were sufficiently Hinduized or not and consequently, the learned trial court came to a finding that the parties were sufficiently Hinduized in order to apply the provisions of Hindu Succession Act.

16. The learned trial court had recorded that the fact of becoming Hinduized of both the parties was disputed and considered this aspect of the matter while deciding issue no. 3 and 5 and decided the same in favour of the plaintiffs and allowed partition and allocation of property to the share to the plaintiffs which included daughters of the family by applying Hindu Succession Act. The learned 1st appellate court specifically framed a point of determination - as to whether the plaintiffs were Hinduized Santhals or not, and after scrutinizing the materials, the learned Court found that the parties were Hinduized Santhals and by applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Labishwar Manjhi Vs. Pran Manjhi and others (Supra), the learned Court was of the view that the parties could not be excluded from the application of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act.

17. This Court finds that both the learned courts have considered the materials on record and case of the respective parties and have come to concurrent findings of fact upon due application of law.

18. So far as the appreciation of materials on record is concerned, no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

19. This Court is of the view that both the learned courts have passed appropriate judgments based on materials on record and no

2025:JHHC:27320

substantial question of law is involved in this 2nd appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj