Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordiante Judge, III, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the learned Sub-Judge decreed the suit being Title Suit No. 91 of 1985. 2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in brief as stated in that Chaturi Singh, son of Shiva Singh was the survey recorded raiyat in respect of lands of khata No. 11 of village Kechaki, P.S. Barwadih, District-Palamau, who had two sons, namely, Ghinhu Singh and Kripa Singh and after the death of Chaturi Singh, both the sons Ghinhu Singh and Kripa Singh jointly came in possession of the lands of Khata No. 11. It is further claimed that in about the year 1930, both the sons of Chaturi Singh partitioned the land of each plot of khata No. 11 half and half and accordingly they came in possession over the respective shares. Ghinhu Singh died in about the year 1931 leaving behind his two sons, namely, Ram Tahal Singh and Radha Singh and a genealogical table has also been given, which is as follows: Chaturi Singh (d) | -------------------------------------------------------- | | Ghinhu Singh (d) Kripa Singh (d) | | ---------------------------- | | | | Ram Tahal Singh (d) Radha Singh (d) | | -w- Dhaneshwari Kuar | | (defendant No. 1) | Munni Lal Singh | | (plaintiff) | | -d- Kushwa Devi-m-Lakshu | Singh (d) | | | | | Manohar Singh | (defendant No. 2) | ------------------------- | | Sarodha Singh Raghubir Singh | -------------------- | | Bhola Singh Suresh Singh It is further pleaded that two sons of Ghinhu Singh formed joint Hindu family and Radha Singh died in the year 1934 leaving behind his widow, defendant No. 1, Dhaneshwari Devi and a daughter only, Kushwa Devi. The widow had only the right of residence in the house and the right of being maintained by the joint family. When Kushwa Devi attained marriageable age, she was given in marriage by Ram Tahal Singh to Lakshu Singh and defendant No. 2 is the son of Kushwa Devi. After the death of Radha Singh, Ram Tahal Singh became the sole raiyat of the lands and the defendant No. 1 being the widow did not inherit anything save and except right to be maintained and no mutation was made in the name of Dhaneshwari Devi. After the death of Radha Singh, Ram Tahal Singh became the sole raiyat of the lands and the defendant No. 1 being the widow did not inherit anything save and except right to be maintained and no mutation was made in the name of Dhaneshwari Devi. It is further claimed that in connivance with Gulab Singh and Bhola Singh, and Suresh Singh, sale-deeds and the deed of gifts were executed in the name of the wife of Gulab Singh and the deed of gift was executed in the name of defendant No. 2, when the Dhaneshwari Devi was aged about 85 years and she was not in a position to understand the situation and the said sale-deeds and the deed of gifts were executed after giving undue influence on defendant No. 1, though no consideration money was paid as well as those documents have never been acted upon. Hence, the suit. 3 The defendants/appellants filed written statement claiming therein that the suit is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation. It is also claimed that Radha Singh, husband of Most. Dhaneshwari Devi died in the year 1943 while partition of the land was effected in the year 1951 and as such Ghinhu Singh never came in exclusive possession of the land in question, Kusba Devi was aged about 11-12 years at the time of death of her father and she died in or about the year 1977. Radha Singh had also a son namely Dukhi Singh, who was born blind and was dependent on his mother. Ram Tahal Singh never came in possession of the land of Dhaneshwari Devi and he had no business to maintain Dhaneshwari Devi at any point of time. The name of Kusba Devi was mutated in the Register of State of Bihar and the rent receipt was also granted in her name. A separate takhta was allotted in favour of defendant No. 1, Dhaneshwari Devi in the year 1951 in course of partition. The plaintiff has got no title and possession over the land in question and the defendant No. 1 executed the deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 2 out of her own free will and volition. She had also executed sale-deeds after payment of consideration money and the sale-deeds were executed after obtaining due permission from the Revenue authorities as required under Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act. She had also executed sale-deeds after payment of consideration money and the sale-deeds were executed after obtaining due permission from the Revenue authorities as required under Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act. Dukhan Singh, the blind son of defendant No. 1 died issueless in the year 1970 and the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed as many as either issues for decision of the suit, which are as follows: (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? (2) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action ? (3) Are the parties governed by Hindu Law ? (4) Had Dhaneshwari Devi or Manohar Singh any right, title or interest and possession over the property ? (5) Whether the deeds executed by Dhaneshwari Devi in favour of Manohar Singh and Sukhmaniya Devi valid, legal and whether title, interest or possession has passed over to the donee and purchasers ? (6) Whether the sale-deed executed by Manohar Singh in favour of Sukhmaniya Devi legal and valid ? (7) Whether the plaintiff has got valid right, title and possession over the property? (8) To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for ? 5. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, the learned lower Court decreed the suit by the judgment dated 27-6-1989. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court, the appellants/defendants preferred this appeal. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned lower Court has committed grave error in decreeing the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the points which have not been pleaded by the either of parties have been decided and considered by the lower Court which is beyond the jurisdiction as there is no pleading that the parties are aboriginals/adivasis, but even then the Court below considered the issue which is quite illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the plaintiff cannot travel beyond the pleading as there is no such plea that both parties, who are Chero by caste are members of Scheduled Tribe. It is also submitted that the plaintiff cannot travel beyond the pleading as there is no such plea that both parties, who are Chero by caste are members of Scheduled Tribe. It is further pleaded that both the sale-deeds executed by Dhaneshwari Devi for a valid consideration and the deed of gift was also executed by Dhaneshwari Devi out of her own free will and affection in favour of defendant No. 2. The learned Counsel further relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1931 Patna Page-305 and -- . 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment as the learned lower Court has rightly decreed the suit, when both parties are Chero by caste and Chero community comes within the purview of Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause 25 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that Dhaneshwari Devi, the defendant No. 1 was aged about 85 years at the time of execution which itself indicates that all the deeds were registered under undue influence with ulterior motive and there was no mutation in the name of Dhaneshwari Devi in respect of land in question. It is also submitted that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that Deputy commissioner, Palamau has not been made party in the suit or in the appeal. The learned Counsel further argued that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply in the instant case as both parties belonged to aboriginals and as such Clause 2 of Sec. 2 of Hindu Succession Act itself prohibits to apply to the members of Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause 25 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also relied upon the cases reported in 1968 PLJR, 363 and AIR 1973 Gauhati 76. 8. Before appreciating the rival contention of the learned Counsel of both parties, it Would be appropriate to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides on the point. 9. It is an admitted position that Chaturi Singh had two sons, namely, Ghinhu Singh and Kirpa Singh. Ghinhu Singh had two sons namely Ram Tahal Singh and Radha Singh. 8. Before appreciating the rival contention of the learned Counsel of both parties, it Would be appropriate to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides on the point. 9. It is an admitted position that Chaturi Singh had two sons, namely, Ghinhu Singh and Kirpa Singh. Ghinhu Singh had two sons namely Ram Tahal Singh and Radha Singh. The plaintiff, Munnilal is the son of Ram Tahal Singh, whereas defendant No. 1 is the widow of Radha Singh who died in the year 1943, as the plaintiff himself admitted in the show cause, Ext. G, filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Latehar that Radha Singh died in the year 1943. It is also an admitted fact that no rent receipt is standing in the name of Dhaneshwari Devi in respect of land in question nor any mutation was made in her name. However, rent receipt, Ext. B series, have been filed standing in the name of Sukhmaniya Devi who is the purchaser from Dhaneshwari Devi but admittedly no mutation order was passed in favour of Dhaneshwari Devi, 10. P.W. 2, Raghubir Singh deposed that Ram Tahal Singh and Radha Singh were residing jointly and Ram Tahal Singh never partitioned the land in favour of Dhaneshwari Devi. According to him the defendants, Manohar Singh and Sukhmaniya Devi never came in exclusive possession of the land in question. He further stated that the widows have got no any right in the Adivasis family, He also claimed to be Activasi. P.W. 3, Bhagat Singh stated that after the death of Radha Singh, the lands of Radha Singh came in possession of Ram Tahal Singh. He further deposed that the defendants have never come in possession of the lands for which the sale-deeds and deed of gift were executed. He further stated in his cross-examination that he came to know in the village that the said deeds were executed stealthily. P.W. 4 stated that Ram Tahal Singh and Radha Singh were residing jointly and they also possessed the lands jointly. He further deposed that after the death of Radha Singh, Dhaneshwari Devi was maintained by Ram Tahal Singh and she was residing in the house of her husband. He further deposed that in the family of Chero caste, widows have got no any right over the lands or property and she cannot sell or gift the lands. He further deposed that after the death of Radha Singh, Dhaneshwari Devi was maintained by Ram Tahal Singh and she was residing in the house of her husband. He further deposed that in the family of Chero caste, widows have got no any right over the lands or property and she cannot sell or gift the lands. He stated in his cross-examination that after the death of Radha Singh there was joint cultivation of the land. P.W. 5, Aliyar Mahto deposed in his evidence that Dhaneshwari Devi was maintained from the joint family property and there was no partition held between Dhaneshwari Devi and Ram Tahal Singh whereas Ram Tahal Singh was cultivating the land in question. He also stated in his cross-examination that there was no Batwara took place in the land of Chaturi Singh. He further deposed that Dukhi Singh, son of Radha Singh was blind, P.W. 6, Munnilal, the plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the land in question. According to him, Dhaneshwari Devi was illiterate and there was no publication in respect of permission to sell the lands. He also deposed that Chero by caste belongs to I community in which the widows have no right over the property. 11. D.W. 3, Deyali Singh stated that Dhaneshwari Devi was residing in separate house. He further deposed that he cannot say about the plot number and khata numbers of the land in question and Munni Lal, the plaintiff had lit the pyre on the death of Dhaneshwari Devi. D.W. 4, Rajnath Singh stated that Ram Tahal Singh or Munnilal have never been in possession of the suit land, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot say the area of the land in question. D.W. 5, Raghubir Singh stated that Dhaneshwari Devi was residing in her house in which the defendant No. 2, Manohar Singh was also residing. According to him, there was a partition took place in the year 1951 between Munnilal Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi. It may be noted here that the defendants themselves admitted in the written statement in para 28 that there is no memorandum of partition available as it has been misplaced and so in absence of any cogent evidence on the point of partition as alleged in the year 1951, the said story of partition does not appear to be convincing and trustworthy. D.W. 5 admitted further that Dhaneshwari Devi was an illiterate lady and there was no rent receipt standing in her name. D.W. 7, Manohar Singh, the defendant No. 2 being the maternal grand son of Dhaneshwari Devi stated that Dhaneshwari Devi was in possession of lands exclusively and separately. He further deposed that Munnilal, the plaintiff never maintained his grand mother Dhaneshwari Devi and Dhaneshwari Devi executed the deed of gift in his favour and he has been coming in possession over the said lands. But, he admitted in his cross-examination in para 53 in clear terms that the plaintiff, Munnilal has not given the possession over the lands of gift as yet to him which itself indicates that defendant No. 2 has not been coming in possession over the suit lands as yet. He also admitted that other purchasers have come in possession over the lands this year only. He further deposed that Dhaneshwari Devi was aged, about 85 years at the time of execution of gift and she was tired. He further stated that he had narrated plot number, khata number and area of the land in question before the scribe as Dhaneshwari Devi was not in a position to disclose the same. Other defendant, D. W.-8 also admitted to have disclosed the plot number and khata number of the land at the time of execution before the scribe. The above statement of the purchaser and donee makes the sale-deed and gift very suspicious and there appears no doubt that the said documents were executed under undue influence. 12. It is also clear from the evidence itself that Dhaneshwari Devi,. defendant No. 1 was illiterate. There is nothing specific in the pleading of the defendants about the sale of the lands for legal necessity by the widow, who was admittedly aged about 85 years. As noticed hereinabove that no any document as regards to the alleged partition held in the year 1951 has been adduced as admitted in para-28 of the written statement itself. 13. I may further mention here that both the sale-deeds alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1, Dhaneshwari Devi have not been produced by the defendants/appellants. However, the original deed of lift Ext. A, has been filed but obviously no any mutation was held in favour, of Manohar Singh, the donee. 13. I may further mention here that both the sale-deeds alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1, Dhaneshwari Devi have not been produced by the defendants/appellants. However, the original deed of lift Ext. A, has been filed but obviously no any mutation was held in favour, of Manohar Singh, the donee. There is also no dispute that both the parties are Chero by caste and Chero comes under the purview of Scheduled Tribes as specified in the Constitution of India. Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly states: Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sec. 1 nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause 25 of the Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government Notification in the official Gazette otherwise directs. 14. In this way, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe in the matter of inheritance or alienation of the property. In the result, Dhaneshwari Devi who was the member of Scheduled Tribe is also not entitled to inherit the property of her husband after his death but she is entitled to be maintained as per provisions of the law. A widow or other limited heir has no power to alienate the estate inherited by her from the deceased owner except for the following purposes, namely: (i) Religious or charitable purposes ; and (ii) Other purposes amounting to legal necessities. 15. As discussed above, there is nothing specific as to the effect that widow had actually sold the land for legal necessity. There is also no such evidence on this score from the side of the defendants/appellants. I have already mentioned above that both the sale-deeds of which the recitals may be looked into in this respect but none of those sale-deeds has been filed. It is settled that the widow having a life interest in the property left by her husband is entitled to remain in possession of the property as a limited owner as long as she is in possession over the same. 16. It is settled that the widow having a life interest in the property left by her husband is entitled to remain in possession of the property as a limited owner as long as she is in possession over the same. 16. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau is not the necessary party in the suit and from perusal and going through the records, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau is not the necessary party and the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has got the substance in this respect. 17. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the parties are Chero by caste but they have adopted Hindu religion and as such they become Hindus and adopted Hindu religion and due to which the widow has every right to alienate property. But, there is no such pleading in the written statement as regards the fact that parties have adopted Hindu religion at any point of time. In that case reported in Ganesh Mahto and Ors. V/s. Shiv Chandra Mahto and Ors. AIR 1931 Patna, 305, it was held that where parties to a suit admitted that originally they were aboriginals but their families have subsequently become Hindu and adopted Hindu religion. But, in the instant case, there is no such pleading that their families have subsequently become Hindus and adopted the Hindu religion. Rather, from the evidence on record, it is clear that both parties are Chero by caste which has been recognised as Scheduled Tribe and for which there is a specific provision as laid down under Sec. 2 Clause 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . 18. Considering the whole aspect of the matter Coupled with evidence on record, I find that the learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit. Hence, the judgment and decree of the lower Court are affirmed. In the result, I do not find merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, but without any costs.