Ram Rai Soren vs Smt. Duli Murmu
2026 Latest Caselaw 1072 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ram Rai Soren vs Smt. Duli Murmu on 12 February, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         S.A. No. 61 of 2013

   1. Ram Rai Soren
   2. Kirtal Soren
   3. Lal Soren
      All sons of Rai Soren @ Sona Rai Manjhi
   4. Sukur Soren, W/o Late Binod Manjhi
   5. Dara Singh, S/o Late Bhagla Manjhi, S/o Ram Sai Manjhi
      All by caste Santhal, by occupation Cultivation, Resident of village
      Kocha, P.S. Bagbera, P.O. Bagbera, District East Singhbhum
                          ...     ...    Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
                                Versus
   1. Smt. Duli Murmu, W/o Late Chotrai Murmu
      By caste Santhal, by occupation Cultivation, Resident of village
      Kacha, P.S. Bagbera, P.O. Bagbera, District East Singhbhum
                          ...     ...    Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
   2. Sain Murmu, S/o Late Chtrai Murmu, resident of village Purihassa,
      P.O. & P.S. Sunder Nagar, District East Singhbhum
      ...       ...    Plaintiff/Proforma Respondent/Proforma Respondent

                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

     For the Appellant       : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
     For the Respondents     :
                         ---
     th
15/12 February 2026

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2013 (decree dated 20.02.2013) passed by the learned District Judge-III, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 34/2007, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 24.04.2007 (decree dated 08.05.2007) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VI, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 218 of 1994 has been confirmed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was decreed which was filed by the widow and daughter of the recorded

tenant and the 1st appeal has been dismissed, but a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case.

4. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs had admitted that they belonged to the tribe called 'Santhal' in their plaint and they had never taken a plea that they are sufficiently hinduised and consequently they are governed by Hindu Succession Act, but the learned courts have recorded finding, on the admission of the defendants in their original written statement, wherein they had stated that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The learned counsel has submitted that though the written statement was not amended, but an additional written statement was filed.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaint was amended and additional written statement was filed and in the additional written statement, a plea was taken that the parties are governed by customary law and according to caste custom, the plaintiffs are not entitled to have a share in the suit property and they never succeeded to the interest of the recorded tenant. It has also been asserted in the additional written statement that the interest in the joint family property devolved upon the brother of the recorded tenant by way of survivorship according to their caste custom and the females are excluded from inheritance and they are only entitled for maintenance.

6. The learned counsel submits that after the substitution of the concerned deceased-defendant, a written statement was filed by legal heir where similar averment was made.

7. The learned counsel submits that since the plaintiffs did not raise a plea that they are sufficiently hinduised , therefore the parties were to be governed by customary law and the written statement of the defendants stating that they are governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law is of no consequence.

8. The learned counsel submits that if tribals are sufficiently hinduised then they can be governed by Mitkshra school of hindu law and

inheritance can be claimed by virtue of Hindu Succession Act, but in absence of any such plea by the plaintiffs, the Hindu Succession Act could not be applied.

9. The learned counsel has placed the plaint and the written statement during the course of hearing. However, from the plaint, the learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any statement that the parties are governed by customary law, rather there is only a statement that the plaintiffs are tribal women and that the plaintiffs are by caste santhals of adivasi community.

10. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants on framing substantial question of law has concluded.

11. Order is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.02.2026 Mukul/-