JUDGMENT : The original Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section- 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), had assailed the judgment and preliminary decree dated 02.04.2002 and 16.04.2002 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in Title Appeal No.43 of 2002. The said original Appellant having died, his legal representatives have come on record and are pursuing this Appeal. The First Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.3) under section 96 of the Code, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 01.09.2001 and 06.09.2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Keonjhar in T.S. No.67 of 1998, has been allowed and the Trial Court, having decreed the suit holding the Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.3), Respondent No.4 (Defendant No.4), Respondent No.6 (Defendant No.6) and Respondents 7 and 8 (Defendant No.7(a) and 7(b) respectively) to be not entitled to any share in Schedule-B and Schedule-C properties and directing the original Appellant (Plaintiff), Respondent No.2 (Defendant No.1), Respondent No.3 (Defendant No.2), Respondent No.5(Defendant No.5) and Respondnet No.7 (now Respondent 7(a) & 7(n) and Defendant No.8 in the Trial Court to effect partition holding their shares as indicated therein; in the First Appeal all the parties have been held entitled to their shares as stated in the order therein. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 3. The original Plaintiff, whose legal representatives having been substituted are now pursuing this appeal, had filed the suit for partition of Schedule-B properties amongst himself and Defendants 1 to 8 as well as partition of Schedule-C properties amongst himself and Defendants 1 and 2 followed by allotment of their shares therein and drawal of the preliminary decree. It is stated that one Biswanath Majhi is the common ancestor. In order to avoid confusion and for better appreciation, said Biswanath, the common ancestor is hereinafter referred to as ‘Old Biswanath’. He had two sons, namely, Khetrabasi and Laxman. Khetrabasi died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Jagabandhu (Plaintiff), Shyam (Defendant No.8) and Biswanath as well as two daughters, namely, Hira (Defendant No3) and Basanti (Defendant No.4). In order to avoid confusion and for better appreciation, said Biswanath, the common ancestor is hereinafter referred to as ‘Old Biswanath’. He had two sons, namely, Khetrabasi and Laxman. Khetrabasi died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Jagabandhu (Plaintiff), Shyam (Defendant No.8) and Biswanath as well as two daughters, namely, Hira (Defendant No3) and Basanti (Defendant No.4). It may be stated here that the parties being Santal by caste and as such are members of Scheduled Tribe Community, ordinarily one of the grandsons through son takes the name of the grandfather. Old Biswanath had another son, namely, Laxman, who died leaving his wife Bhabi (Defendant No.5) and as they had no sons but two daughters. This Shyam son of Khetrabasi had been taken on adoption by Laxman being so given by Khetrabasi. Biswanth, son of Khetrabasi died dleaving behind his wife Budhuni (Defendant No.2 since Dead) and they had a son Prema, who died issueless and the other son is NImai (Defendant No.1). It is stated that Schedule-B lands are the ancestral properties of the parties and Schedule-C property was the Padhani Jagiri land in possession of old Biswanath till his death in the year 1929. It is further stated that on his death, Khetrabasi, he being the village headman and continued to serve as such till his death and enjoyed Padhani Jagiri land in Schedule-C. The Plaintiff further states that there was a severance of the joint status between the brothers, Khetrabasi and Laxman during their lifetime and with the death of Khetrabasi in the year 1969, the Plaintiff and his brother Biswanath remained in joint possession of the said lands and Biswanath, being the eldest son of late Khetrabasi, remained in charge of the family affairs of the branch of Khetrabasi. On the date of application of Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices) Abolition Act, 1963; Khetrabasi was in possession of Schedule- C land as the Padhan of the village but the said lands, instead of being recorded jointly in the name of his two sons on rayati basis, on his death, was recorded by the State only in the name of Biswanath, the husband of Defendant No.2 and father of Defendant No.1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that said settlement of Schedule-C land on rayati basis in favour of Biswanath, however, enures to his benefit too and he is entitled to half share over the same. It is the case of the Plaintiff that said settlement of Schedule-C land on rayati basis in favour of Biswanath, however, enures to his benefit too and he is entitled to half share over the same. When the proposal for amicable partition of Schedule-B and C lands were turned down by the Defendants, the suit has come to be filed. 4. The Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 filed the joint written statement. They admitted the case of the Plaintiff in entirety. It may be stated here that Defendant No.7 having expired during the suit, his legal representatives are there on record as Defendant Nos.7(a) and 7(b). The Defendant No.8 did not contest the suit. 5. Defendants 1 to 3 filed their joint written statement admitting the factum of non-partition of their ancestral property, as described in Schedule-B of the plaint as yet and accordingly, they raised no objection for the partition of the said land. Their objection is to the claim of partition of Schedule-C land and banking upon the very settlement of the said land exclusively in the name of Biswanath on rayati basis; they say that except they, who are the son and wife of Biswanath, none else has any interest/share in that land. 6. The Trial Court, faced with the above rival pleadings, has framed five issues. Coming to answer all those, it has finally been held by the Trial Court that Schedule-B and C properties are liable to be partitioned. Then holding that parties being members of Scheduled Tribe, and as the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 have no application to them; the female heirs, namely, Defendants.3, 4, 6 and 7 are not entitled to have share over Schedule-B and C land. The following order has been passed:- “xx. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 8 are directed to effect an amicable partition with regard to the suit schedule-B lands, in which partition, the plaintiff will be entitled to the 1/4th share, the defendant no.1 and 2 jointly will be entitled to the 1/4th share and the defendants no.5 and 8 will be jointly entitled to the rest ½ share. The plaintiff and the defendants no.1 and 2 are also directed to effect an amicable partition among themselves in respect of suit schedule-C lands in which partition, the plaintiff will be entitled to the ½ share and the defendants no.1 and 2 together will be entitled to the rest 1/5 share therein. If an amicable partition among the parties in the manner as directed does not take place with a period of two months hence, it will be open for the plaintiff or the defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 8 to approach the Court to make the preliminary decree final and in such final decree proceeding a Civil Court Commissioner be deputed on deposit of his necessary fees and expenses by the appellant(s) for the final decree to give effect to the order of partition in the manner as directed giving respect to the actual physical possession of the parties as far as practicable.” 7. The Defendant No.3, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court, carried the Appeal to the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court has differed with the finding of the Trial Court on the score that Schedule-C properties are liable to be partitioned and it has been said that the said properties are the exclusive rayati land of Biswanath which would only be available to be partitioned between Defendant No.1, who is the son and Defendant No.2, the widow of Biswanath. It has again held that the parties governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and with such finding, the First Appellate Court has gone to order as under:- “….As it has been held that interest of Khetrabasi is half of ‘B’ schedule, so in the event of partition of it, the share of Khetrabasi woiuld be 1/3rd of half of his interest, i.e., Khetrabasi’s interest would be 1/6th. If that 1/6th is partitioned amongst his two sons and two daughters, then interest of defendant no.3 (appellant) would be 1/24th. That is also the interest of Basanti (D-4). The share of Biswanath and Jagabandhu would be 5/24th each (1/6+1/24). The share of defendants 1 and 2 each (representing the branch of late Biswanath) would be 5/48 (5/24÷2). In the half share of Laxman, the share of defendants 6 and 7 will be 1/24th each, the share of defendants 5 and 8 will be 5/24th each. The share of Biswanath and Jagabandhu would be 5/24th each (1/6+1/24). The share of defendants 1 and 2 each (representing the branch of late Biswanath) would be 5/48 (5/24÷2). In the half share of Laxman, the share of defendants 6 and 7 will be 1/24th each, the share of defendants 5 and 8 will be 5/24th each. Accordingly, the parties are directed to effect an amicable partition with respect to suit ‘B’ schedule land according to the extent of their shares indicated above within two months hence, failing which either of the parties may approach the Court to make the preliminary decree final by depositing Civil Court Commissioner’s fee and expenses to give effect to the order of partition. While effecting partition, the Civil Court Commissioner will give respect fo the actual physical possession of the parties as far as practicable.” 8. While effecting partition, the Civil Court Commissioner will give respect fo the actual physical possession of the parties as far as practicable.” 8. The present Appeal has been admitted on 14.11.2002 on the substantial questions of law, as indicated in Ground No.A, B, D and E of the Memorandum of Appeal and those read as quoted from and reproduced hereunder:- “(i) The parties having belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (Santala) and defendants nos.1 to 3 in their written statement having admitted the plaintiff’s plea that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to the parties, if the court below is correct in reversing the finding of the trial court in that regard merely because one of the defendants had challenged the judgment; (ii) When the defendants 1 and 2 being beneficiaries of the Schedule-C property are really aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court and did not challenge the judgment or findings of the trial court by filing any appeal or cross objection, if the court below has committed gross illegality n reversing the finding of the trial court with regard to the ownership of schedule-C property in the appeal filed by the defendant no.3, who is in fact not competent to challenge the judgment; (iii) If the Court below committed gross error of law in holding that the settlement of Padhan Jagir holding under the Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act in favoiur of Bisanath after the death of his father Khetrabasi, would not enure to the benefit of other co-sharer, the plaintiff; and (iv) In absence of any order of settlement in favour of Biswanath, the father of defendant no.1 and 2 under Orissa Offices of Village Police (Abolition) Act, if the court below has committed gross error in holding that the property described in schedule-c of the plaint exclusively belonged to the defendant no.1 and 2 and not liable for partition.” 9. Mr.D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the First Appellate Court’s view that although the parties are Santal and as such are the members of Scheduled Tribe Community, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would govern the field is wholly erroneous as according to him, as yet there has been no notification as provided in Sub-section-2 of Section-2 of said Act to that effect. He further submitted that the First Appellate Court has completely erred in law in holding that Schedule-C properties having been settled only in the name of Biswanath since long and as such is not liable to partition as amongst all the co-sharers of the family and the claim of the Plaintiff for partition of said schedule property having entitlement to the legitimate share therein is not acceptable. In this connection, he submitted that when the Trial Court had rightly answered said issue that Schedule-C land are also liable to be partitioned as claimed by the Plaintiff, the First Appellate Court’s conclusion that is not liable to be partitioned as claimed by the Plaintiff cannot sustain as it is against the settled position of law that such Jagiri system being abolished even though the lands gets settled in the name of one of the members of the family, be it in the name of the one who was last performing the said duties attached to the village office, the same would enure to the benefit of all the co-sharers and the khas possession of the same by one of co-sharer shall be deemed to the possession of the entire body of co-sharers. According to him, such settlement is not to be deemed to be only with that co-sharer whose name appears in the record but the settlement with all co-sharers owning the estate. In support of the same, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Ganesh Chandra Jew –V- Kalia Singh & Others; 2018 (I) OLR 457 . None appeared on behalf of the Respondents being provided with opportunities. 10. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. 11. Admittedly, the parties are Santals by caste and as such, members of Scheduled Tribe Community within the meaning of clause-25 of Article-63 of the Constitution of India. No such notification of the Central Government in the Official Gazette has yet been published making the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applicable to them. Therefore, as provided in sub-section-2 of Section-2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the provision of the said Act does not apply to them and govern the field for them. They, however, being Hindus are governed by old Hindu Law. Therefore, as provided in sub-section-2 of Section-2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the provision of the said Act does not apply to them and govern the field for them. They, however, being Hindus are governed by old Hindu Law. The First Appellate Court is found to have fallen in grave error by saying that since they are Hindus and are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and have adopted the Hindu ways of custom and culture in their society, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply to them. Coming to other question as to claim of partition of Schedule-C property as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is not in dispute that old Biswanath was the original Jagirdar and after coming into force of Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices) Abolition Act, 1963, the land has been settled in the name of Biswanath, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No.1. The position of law is no more res integra that the settlement of such Jagir lands with one of the co-sharers would enure to the benefit of all co-sharers and thus the lands become partiable as the joint family property. It is also the settled position of law that even if one of the co-sharers is found to be in khas possession of the said land on the date of versting, such possession shall be deemed to the possession of the entire body of co-sharers and the land in possession of one of the co-sharers shall be deemed to be settled not only with him, but with all the co-sharers owning the estate. This view being settled in catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court; has further been reiterated in relation to Topa Paika Jagiri land in the cited case of Ganesh Ch. Jew (Supra) that the settlement in favour of one of the Jagirdars would enure to the benefits of other Jagirdars. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court answers the substantial questions of law in favour of the case set up and the claim advanced by /claim of the Plaintiff, which leads to set aside the judgment and preliminary decree as have been passed by the First Appellate Court and that in turn, goes to restore the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court. In the ultimate, it is held that both Schedule-B and C properties are liable to be partitioned and the parties are entitled to their share as stated herein below :- (A) the widow of the Original Plaintiff, i.e, Kuanar Soren @ Majhi substituted as Appellant No.1(a) who is so assigned the position as Plaintiff No.1(a) is entitled to 1/4th share; (B) the Defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/4th share; and (C) the legal representatives of Defendant No.8, who are here Respondent Nos.9(a) to 9(h) and are so assigned the position as Defendant No.8(a) to 8(h), from among them Defendant No.8(a) is entitled to 1/4th share whereas Defendant No.8(f), 8(g) and 8(h) are entitled to 1/12th share each. The other stipulations would be that while effecting partition, the actual physical possession of the parties in the field would be given respect to keeping in view their convenience as far as possible and practicable. 12. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed to the extent as aforestated. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.