JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a defendants’ appeal against confirming judgment. 2. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted T.S. No.6 of 2003 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Karanjia for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that Dhara Naik was the common ancestor of plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos.7 and 8. He was the son-in-law of Chaitan Naik. After marriage, he resided in the house of Chaitan as illatom son-in-law. As per custom, Chaitan had bequeathed some lands orally in favour of Dhara including schedule ‘A’ land. Dhara was in possession of the same till his death. Dhara had also acquired other properties. He constructed a house thereon and resided with his family members. Being illiterate, he could not take steps to record the land in his name during 1930-31 settlement bequeathed by his father-in-law. During current settlement of the year 1982-83, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the father of the defendant nos.2, 4 to 6. Dhara died fifty years back leaving behind his three sons. There was partition of the properties between his sons orally. In the said partition, item no.1 of the schedule ‘A’ property fell to the share of the father of plaintiff nos.1 to 3. Item no.2 of the schedule ‘A’ property fell to the share of father of plaintiff nos.4 and 5. The sons of Dhara could not take steps for recording their lands in settlement operation. It was further pleaded that plaintiff nos.1 to 3 purchased ‘B’ schedule land from one Purna Chandra Pradhan by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.6.1997 for a valid consideration. The land was mutated. While the matter stood thus, plaintiff nos.1 to 3 filed P-F.I. Case No.221 of 1998 before the Tahasildar, Karanjia for identification of the land of their father. The defendant nos.1 to 6 forcibly occupied the land and dispossessed the plaintiff nos.1 to 3 taking advantage of recording the land in their favour. Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 instituted T.S. No. 5 of 1999 for demarcation of the land through a civil court commissioner. He withdrew the suit with a leave to file a fresh suit. After withdrawal, they demarcated the land by an Amin. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit. 3. Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 instituted T.S. No. 5 of 1999 for demarcation of the land through a civil court commissioner. He withdrew the suit with a leave to file a fresh suit. After withdrawal, they demarcated the land by an Amin. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit. 3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that schedule ‘A’ land was never bequeathed by Chaitan in favour of Dhara. They are in possession of ‘B’ schedule property. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. The suit was decreed. The defendants unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in R.F.A. No.60 of 2004, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether it is permissible on the part of a Hindu to bequeath property by oral will after coming into force of the Indian Succession Act (Act No.39 of 1925) ? 2. Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit in the absence of any will executed by Chaitanya Naik in favour of Dhara Naik ? 3. Whether the finding of the learned trial court that Chaitanya Naik might have bequeathed some lands in favour of his son-in-law Dhara Nayak is based on no evidence and as such the judgments are vitiated ?” 6. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Chaitan had not bequeathed any property in favour of Dhara Naik. The Will can be made by a written document. Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not contemplate an oral Will. He relied on the decision in the case of Sunita Shivdasani v. Geeta Gidwani and another, AIR 2007 Delhi 242. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the scheduled tribes are not Hindus. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not applicable to the scheduled tribes. He further contended that Dhara married to the daughter of Chaitan eighty years back. The suit was instituted in the year 2003. The Indian Succession Act was enacted in the year 1925. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the scheduled tribes are not Hindus. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not applicable to the scheduled tribes. He further contended that Dhara married to the daughter of Chaitan eighty years back. The suit was instituted in the year 2003. The Indian Succession Act was enacted in the year 1925. Thus the provision of Indian Succession Act does not apply. According to him, under the custom prevailing in the society oral gift was permissible. He further contended that Indian Succession Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Hindu Marriage Act do not apply to the scheduled tribes. He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Madhu Kishwar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 SC 1864 . 9. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, the ‘Act’) was enacted to consolidate the law applicable to intestate and testamentary succession. Part VI of the Act deals with testamentary succession. Sec.63(a) of the Act postulates that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. On a bare perusal of Sec.63(a) of the Act, it is clear that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. This section further provides that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses. The words “shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will” mean that a Will must be in writing. The same view was taken in Sunita Shivdasani (supra). The Act does not contemplate an oral Will. 10. There is no pleading that Dhara married to the daughter of Chaitan before coming into force of the Indian Succession Act. Neither any custom was pleaded nor evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to show that oral Will was permissible. Though feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondents that scheduled tribes are not Hindus and as such Indian Succession Act does not apply to them, but then no authority was placed before this Court. Both the courts below fell into patent error of law in brushing aside the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Though feeble attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondents that scheduled tribes are not Hindus and as such Indian Succession Act does not apply to them, but then no authority was placed before this Court. Both the courts below fell into patent error of law in brushing aside the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. The finding of the learned trial court that Chaitan might have bequeathed the land in favour of his son-in-law Dhara is perverse. Schedule ‘B’ property was purchased by the plaintiff nos.1 to 3. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. 11. The case Madhu Kishwar and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the apex Court had the occasion to consider the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 12. As a sequel to the above discussion, the judgments and decrees of the courts below with regard to schedule ‘A’ property are set aside. The plaintiffs are the absolute owner in possession of ‘B’ schedule property. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. The appeal is allowed in part. No costs.