JUDGMENT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 60 of 1977 in the Court of Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. against defendants for declaration that they were the nearest agnates of Jadu Munda, son of Debe Munda Budhus Munda of village Kudasun. District Ranchi.
2. Admittedly, name of Jadu Munda was recorded under Khewat No. 4/13 of village Kudasud. In paragraph 4 of the plaint. plaintiffs mentioned a jeneological table. According to them, Hari Munda left behind two sons. Deba Munda and Konta Munda. Deba Munda had three sons. Panda. Mohan and Kisna, Kisna had a son, Deva @ Budhus. He left behind his only son Jadu Munda, who died issueless and his branch became extinct. Konta had also three sons, Hari. Kuer and Ramai. Both Hari and Kuer died issueless and Ramai died leaving behind three sons Deba, Durga and Konta. Both Deba and Durga died issuless and Konta got four sons, namely, Ramai. Mogo. Kocha and Dhiru, plaintiff No. 3 Ramai got a son, Hari, plaintiff No. I and Mogo got a son, Konta, plaintiff No. 2.
3. According to plaintiffs, cause of action for filing the present suit arose when -, defendants demanded partition of the lands of Khewat No. 4/13 from them.
4. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed a joint written statement and defendant No. 3 filed a separate written statement related with Jadu Munda in any manner. According to them. Rote Munda had six sons, Kolai, Mani, Sahiba, Dihai, Satari and Deva. Kolai died issueless. Mani had a son. Budhua, whose son was Jadu Munda. Sahiba left behind four sons Mani Kolai. Dand and Doma. Mani left
behind two sons, Ghasi and Lohar. Ghasi had two sons, Mani and Adojohan, who died is-suelss Lohar got two sons, Dondo and Francis, defendants 1 and 2 and Mani got two sons, Ghasi @ Yusuf and Soma. defendants 3 and 4. Kolai, Daud and Doma died issueless. Dinai left behind three sons, Lal, Karam and Moso all died ispueless. Satari had three sons, namely, Bishram. Munda and Konta -all died issueless Deba also left village and went to Assam. In this manner defendants 1 to 4 claimed themselves to be nearest agnates of Jadu Munda.
5. Pedigree given by both plaintiffs and defendants were quite different from each other. In plaintiffs pedigree there was no reference of the defendants or their ancestors, likewise in the pedigree given by defendants, there wrs no reference of plaintiffs or their anceestors.
6. In support of pedigree given in paragraph 4 of the plaint, plaintiffs produced Kursinama. Ext. 2 prepared at the time of cadestral survey, wherein Jadu Munda the recorded Khewatdar of Khewat No. 4/13 was shown as grand-son of Kisna. who was one of the three sons of Deba and plaintiffs were descendants of Gonda. who was full brother of Deba.
7. Khatian, Ext. 1 was prepared in the names of sons of Deba and Konta. whose name appeared in the pedigree shown in plaint.
8. DW 5 stated in his deposition that Chanda of Khewat No. 4/13 lands of Jadu Munda was being paid separately from the lands of Khewat Nos. 4/10 to 4/12 belonging to defendants’ ancestors.
9. A perusal of Ext. C, the Khewat Book reveals that Chanda of Khewat 4/13 lands was used to be paid along with Chanda of Khewat No. 4/14 to Khewatwar of Khewat No. 4/10. The fact that Chanda of Khwat 4/14 of plaintiffs’ family was being paid with Chanda of Khewat No. 4/13 proved that plaintiffs and not the defendants were agnates of Jadu Munda son of Budhus Munda.
10. In Khewat No. 4/14. names of Konta. Rote and Durga. all sons of Ramai Munda of village Chanderdih was shown, whose names are found in plaintiffs’ pedigree given in the plaint. All the defendants’ witnesses accepted that plaintiffs belonged to village Chandor within Tamar Police Station.
11. PW 2 a survey knowing Advocate Commissioner prepared a comparative chart. Ext. 4 from which it was established that none of the plots belonging to the defendants were included in Revisional Survey plot of Jadu Munda and most of their Cadestral Survey plots were intact in Revisional Survey. It goes against defendants’ claim that they were in possession of the lands of Jadu Munda. DW 5 admitted that no land belonging to Konta was being cultivated by the defendants. No evidence was brought on record by defendants that actually Budhus, father of Jadu Munda was son of Mani.
12. Plaintiffs were able to prove that pedigree given in plaint was correct and they were nearest agnates of late Jadu Munda, the recorded Khewatdar of Khewat No. 4/13. Trial Court also found the same and held accordingly.
13. It appears that one survey knowing Advocate. PW 2 prepared a comparative chart as well as map by imposing Revisional Survey plot over Cadestral Survey plot belonging to late Jadu Munda and his report was marked Ext. 4. It shows that none of the plots belonging to the defendants vcre included in Revisional Survey plot of Jadu Munda and most of the Cadestral Survey plots were intact in Revisional Survey. So, defendants ‘claimed that they were in possession of the land of Jadu Munda was not correct. PW 2 admitted that defendants were cultivating only the land belonging to their own family. DW 3 also supported the fact defendants cultivated the land belonging to Mani and Rote and their ancestors. DW 5 himself admitted in paragraph 11 of his deposition that plaintiffs got their lands village-Kudasu.
14. Trial Court held that plaintiffs were able to prove that they were the nearest agnates of late Jadu Munda. However, it observed that the suit was not maintainable and barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and hence dismissed the suit.
15. In the present case, plaintiffs being in actual possession of the lands of late Jadu Munda was not required to ask for further relief and the present suit for mere declaration that they were the nearest agnates of late Jadu Munda was maintainable.
16. Plaintiffs were not dispossessed by any act of the defendants and only a cloud was thrown on their title by defendants’ con-
duct when they asked for partition. In my opinion plaintiffs rightly filed the suit for a mere declaration as aforesaid and had no need to ask for any further relief therein.
17. It is well settled that even if plain tiffs omitted to sue for any particular relief arising out of the same cause of action, it will not affect the maintainability of the suit, rather he will at must fprfeit his right to sue afterwards in respect of that relief and the suit cannot be said to be hit by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,
18. I, there-lore, set aside trial Court’s findings that the suit was hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and was. therefore, not maintainable and confirm the finding that plaintiffs proved that they were the nearest agnates of late Jadu Munda. Consequently, the suit is decreed.
19. In the result, this appeal is allowed,
but without costs. Lower Court records may
be sent down.
20. Appeal allowed.