IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 308 of 2004.
---
Lalu Chik Baraik ... ... Appellant
Versus
Muna Devi and others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
10. 4.3.2009
. 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.
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 ab-
original 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.
-2-
The defendants controverted the claims and allegations of the
plaintiffs.
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.
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.
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
-3-
evidences on record. No substantial question of law is involved in this
second appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. However, no costs.
(R. K. Merathia, J)
R. Shekhar Cp.2.