BHURI AND ORS. Vs. MAROTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the decree passed by the first appellate Court whereby the dismissal of the suit has been set aside and decree for possession and perpetual injunction has been passed against the appellants.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent - plaintiff and the appellants - defendants are close relatives. They claim to belong to Kolam community of Scheduled Tribes. According to the plaintiff, one Bhutu Atram was the owner of field Gut No.5, admeasuring 6 Hectare 44R land situated at village Rahati, Tq. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal. Said Bhutu had no male issue. Hence he had adopted one Jairam Kashiram Atram as his son by executing a registered deed of adoption on 25-3-1968. The name of said Jairam was changed to Dattatray. Said Dattatray died on 17-8-1994 and the plaintiff is his only son.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement and stated that they were related with the plaintiff and they all were belonging to Kolam community. It was submitted that Bhutu had one son named Bhavanya who had expired prior to Bhutu. According to them, after the death of Bhutu, as per the law applicable to Kolam community, his widow, the defendants and the daughter of Bhavanya were the legal heirs and they had equal share in the suit property. It was denied that as per the custom prevailing in Kolam community, the son alone would become the legal heir for inheriting the property. It was also stated that the plaintiff was not a blood relative of Bhutu and hence, he had no right to succeed to the suit property. In the specific pleadings, a plea was taken that only the blood relatives of the deceased were entitled to claim rights as legal heirs. On these grounds aforesaid suit came to be opposed.