- (1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2009 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge (FTC), Dumka in T.A. No.25/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2007 passed in Title Suit No.131 of 1998 by Sub Judge -I, Dumka.
(2.) THE plaintiff had brought the said suit against the defendants seeking decree declaring that the plaintiff is validly adopted son of Randhan Hembram and Nunwa Soren as per their custom and inherited the property of Randhan Hembram. A decree for injunction was also sought restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with the right, title, interest and social status of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that Randhan Hembram wife of Nunwa Soren and daughter of Kharia Hembram had inherited the property of Jamabandi No.21 of Mouza Jargaridih, P.S. Masalia, District Dumka. Accordingly, the record of right was prepared in the name of Randhan Hembram in last settlement being Jamabandi No.21, corresponding to the new settlement Jamabandi No.18 of Mauza Jargaridih. Randhan Hembram and her husband Nunwa Soren had no issue. They had adopted the plaintiff as their son according to the Santhal custom on 3.1.1987 in presence of Handi Manjhi, Jog Manjhi and other villagers. They subsequently executed a registered deed of adoption No.119/91 dated 22.3.1993 acknowledging the adoption. The adoptive mother of the plaintiff died on 21.8.1994 and subsequently father died on 23.3.1995. During the recent settlement Jamabandi was recorded in the name of adoptive mother. After death of his mother the plaintiff filed petition before the Settlement Officer, Dumka for entry of his name as tenant in place of Randhan Hembrom. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, claiming themselves as agnets of Randhan Hembram, objected to the said prayer of the plaintiff. Learned Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dated 30.6.1997 directed to maintain the name of Randhan Hembram giving liberty to the plaintiff to get his right decided by competent court. Hence, the suit.
(3.) THE defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the plaintiff's suit. It was, inter alia, stated that name of Randhan Hembram was initially recorded in the settlement record. The defendants had filed objection against the entry. The same is still pending. The present settlement has not yet finalised. The record of right has not been finally framed and published. The p.ies are 'Santhals'. They are not governed by Hindu Law. There is neither custom of adoption in Santhals nor any law provides for adoption in Santhal community. The claim of the appeallant is wholly false and frivolous. There was no adoption as claimed by the plaintiff. The alleged registered deed is fabricated and a forged document. It was not signed by Randhan. Even an issueless Santhal is not entitled to adopt any son. In case where there is no son and there is daughter, a Santhal is entitled to bring 'Gharjamai' after marrying his daughter and his status is at par with adoption. It was stated that the suit is frivolous and baseless and not at all maintainable.;