JUDGMENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant for setting aside the Judgment dated 20.04.2015 decree signed on 02.05.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 60 of 2007 by learned District Judge I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder Judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007, decree signed on 13.09.2007 passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge VI, Jamshedpur was dismissed. Factual matrix 2. Factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff/appellant has instituted Title Suit No. 54 of 1999 against the defendants for declaration of gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is null and void being illegal and fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff with other consequential reliefs. According to plaintiff the suit Scheduled B property was belonging to his ancestor Haru Bhumij who died leaving behind his four sons Kokil Bhumij, Gahan Bhumij, Sohan Bhumij and Madhav Bhumij, out of them Sohan Bhumij died issueless. Gahan Bhumij died leaving behind his sole daughter Bimla Dasi who also died unmarried. Madhav Bhumij died leaving behind his sole daughter Ratna Bhumijian @ Ratna Dasi who is defendant no.1 in this suit. Kokil Bhumij died leaving behind his two sons namely, Madhu Bhumij and Shambhoo Bhumij. Madhu Bhumij also died leaving behind one son Kargal Bhumij. Kargal Bhumij died issueless. Shambhu Bhmij died leaving behind his sole son Shiv Nath Singh who is plaintiff and sole male member left in the family of said Haru Bhumij. It is further alleged that plaintiff belong to Bhumij community and in Bhumij community married daughter are excluded from right of inheritance with respect to ancestral property as they are Schedule Tribe, so in the matter of inheritance and succession they are guided by their traditional tribal laws prevalent in their community and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable in their case. It is further pleaded that parties have sufficiently Hinduised and they are guided by Mitakshra School of Hindu in the matter of succession and inheritance. Defendant no. 1, namely, Ratna Bhumij @ Ratna Dasi is the aunt (father’s sister) of plaintiff and defendant no.2, Gangadhar Singh is stranger to the family of the plaintiff. When defendant no. 1 became widow she left her in-laws house and started living with plaintiff at Patamda and plaintiff was also taking all care of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1, namely, Ratna Bhumij @ Ratna Dasi is the aunt (father’s sister) of plaintiff and defendant no.2, Gangadhar Singh is stranger to the family of the plaintiff. When defendant no. 1 became widow she left her in-laws house and started living with plaintiff at Patamda and plaintiff was also taking all care of defendant no. 1. When defendant no. 1 became old defendant no.2 came in close contact with her and behind the back of plaintiff defendant no.2 managed to get a gift deed in his favour executed by defendant no. 1 bearing no. 2136 dated 15.05.1997 at Registry office, Jamshedpur. Plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid gift deed in the first week of July,1997 when the defendant no. 2 disclosed the fact of obtaining gift and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from their land. On 05.07.1999, defendant obtained certified copy of said gift deed and came to know that suit lands have been included in that gift deed. Since the defendant no. 1 is the married daughter, so as per the custom and tradition prevalent in their society being Scheduled Tribe, defendant no.1 had no right to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant no. 2, hence the gift deed is illegal and void. It is further stated that defendant has also managed to obtain permission u/s 46 of C.N.T. Act vide Misc. Case No. 72/90-91 after suppressing the material facts that defendant no.1 has not right to transfer the ancestral land of the plaintiff. Since married daughter in Schedule Tribe community had no right to inherit the ancestral property as such survey record of right was wrongly prepared in the name of Bimla Dasi and Ratna Dasi and their possession has also been shown wrongly in the remark column of survey record, however, it will not affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 has got the gift deed knowingly and willfully for his wrongful gain and to deprive the plaintiff from his right of inheritance with respect to the suit property as such gift deed is not binding upon the plaintiff and it creates no right in favour of defendant no.2 and plaintiff is still the absolute owner of the property in question. Since the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the suit land, so illegal gift deed will not affect the right of plaintiff who is still in possession of the suit land and gift deed is in favour of stranger, so in no manner it can be valid. Gift deed has been obtained by defendant no.2 from defendant no.1 under undue influence and defendant no.2 has got no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on the basis of said gift deed and it is a nullity. Since the property belongs to Schedule Tribes member hence, Deputy Commissioner is also made necessary party as per provision of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. 3. In the above suit original defendant no. 1 died during pendency of the suit land her name was deleted vide order dated 02.05.2002. Defendant no.2 also died and his legal heirs has been substituted. The substituted heirs of defendant no.2 have filed their written statement stating interalia that there is no cause of action for the suit which is barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as well as various provision of C.N.T. Act. It is further pleaded that a partition took place between heirs of Haru Bhumij and the deceased defendant no. 1 have also got her share in the property prior to the year 1964 and the same has been identified and she was in cultivating possession of her share. It has also been shown in the record of right. Subsequently, out of love and affection she gifted her entire share in favour of Gangadhar Singh vide registered gift deed no. 2136 dated. 08.05.97 Gangadhar Singh who also died leaving behind their legal heirs who are cultivating the suit land on the basis of deed of gift made in favour of their deceased father Gangadhar Singh. Donor has executed gift deed and donee has accepted it and it was followed by immediate delivery of possession, so the gift deed is legal, valid and the same has been acted upon properly as such there is no question of any illegality with regard to the gift deed made in favour of original defendant no.2 by original defendant no.1. Ratna Dasi. Ratna Dasi. It is denied that in the matter of inheritance and Succession plaintiff and deceased defendant no.1 were guided by the tribal customary laws rather they have been sufficiently Hinduised and they are guided by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the matter of inheritance and succession. So deceased Ratna Dasi being absolute owner of the suit property had right to execute gift and property in favour of any person. It is not true that plaintiff is in possession of the entire property of Haru Bhumij rather during her lift time Ratna Dasi was absolute owner of the property succeeded by her out of joint stock of late Haru Bhumij and she gift it in favour of defendant no.2 and she was entitled to make testamentary disposition of the property of her share and there is no question of application of law of survivorship as claimed by the plaintiff and plaintiff cannot succeed the share of Ratna Dasi. According to record of right prepared in the year 1964 Ratna Dasi has been shown as co-sharer in the suit property and in remark column her possession has also been shown with respect to the suit property in question and khatian was prepared in the name of three co-sharers including Ratna Dasi. Geanealogy has been given by the plaintiff has been admitted but they have denied that plaintiff is absolute owner of the entire property of Haru Bhumij as being only the surviving male member in the family of Haru Bhumij. It is further stated that when the gift deed was executed by Ratna Dasi the plaintiff was well aware of it and Ratna Dasi was living with Gangadhar at the time of making gift and she obtained permission for transfer of her property prior to making gift from the concerned authority under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act and she had become absolute owner of the property under Hindu Succession Act. After the death of Gangadhar Singh, his legal heirs and substituted defendants are in possession of the gifted property, hence, suit of the plaintiff is fit to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleading of the parties following issues were settled by the learned trial court:- (i) Whether the suit is framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? On the basis of the pleading of the parties following issues were settled by the learned trial court:- (i) Whether the suit is framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit has been property valued and the sufficient court fees has been paid? (iv) Whether the suit is bared by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Whether the suit is hit by principles of Limitation Act and Specific Relief Act? (vi) Whether the gift deed execute by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is valid document and whether it has got binding nature up on the plaintiff? (vii) Whether the parties are governed by the customary law or Hindu law in the matter of succession? (viii) Whether married daughter of deceased father of schedule tribe acquiring right to inherit the property left by her father as absolute owner? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 4. Issues Nos. VI, VII & VIII are prime issues of this case which were taken together by the learned trial court for adjudication. The learned trial court has considered the oral evidence examined by the plaintiff himself and documentary evidence of exhibit 1 & 2 series which are rent receipts and certified copy of khatian respectively in respect of land in question which discloses that Bimla Dasi and Ratna Dasi are recorded tenant having their equal share along with Shambhu Bhumij and their separate possession is also shown in the remark column. Admittedly, the suit property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and separate possession of plaintiff’s father Ratna Dasi has been sown in the remark column in the record of rights, it means that they were separately possessing the suit land since the year 1964. Fact of possession over the suit property by the contesting defendant has also been admitted by the plaintiff himself during his cross-examination. Though it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that they are governed by the old Hindu law and principle of Survivorship will be applicable but court is not convince with this argument because documentary evidence on record of right clearly shows that separate possession of Ratna Dasi in remark column in respect to the suit property. Though it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that they are governed by the old Hindu law and principle of Survivorship will be applicable but court is not convince with this argument because documentary evidence on record of right clearly shows that separate possession of Ratna Dasi in remark column in respect to the suit property. Though in gift deed some of the plots have been fully mentioned but entire lands of all the plots has not be completely transferred, rather portion of some plots has been transferred which disclosed that defendant no.1 has transferred the portion of those plots which were in her possession. Though it has been pleaded by the defendant that partition took place amongst the co-sharer of Haru Bhumij prior to the year 1964 but it has been denied by plaintiff. Defendants witnesses have also supported the partition of property of Haru Bhumij prior to 1964. Plaintiffs witnesses have denied the previous partition but record of rights which is a documentary evidence shows the separate possession of Ratna Dasi. It means portion of plot has been possessed by Ratna Dasi separately, total area of land of Khata no. 340, 341, 342, 226 and 227 comes to 10.25 acres out of which only 2.96 acres has been gifted by Ratna Dasi in favour of defendant Gangadhar Singh. Though they are tribal peoples but since they have been sufficiently Hinduised and adopted the Hindu custom and tradition so law of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will apply in this case which gets support from the record of right itself which shows the separate possession of Ratna Dasi. As per provision of Hindu Succession Act, members of joint family can transfer their share in favour of any person by way of testamentary disposititon even in the State of jointness, so this question has no importance whether the suit property was joint property or separate property. But from record of rights it is clear and evident that property was separate having separate possession of the parties, and only 2.96 acres land have been transferred by Ratna Dasi in favour of Gangadhar Dasi which is not access to the quantum of share of Ratna Dasi out of 10.25 acres of land. Law referred by defendant is more convincing and well fitted in the circumstances of this case. Law referred by defendant is more convincing and well fitted in the circumstances of this case. Showing this way answer of issue no.7 is that parties will be governed by Hindu Law of Succession in the matter of succession and inheritance because they have been sufficiently Hinduised and married daughter of deceased father of Schedule Tribe will acquire right in the suit property by way of inheritance as absolute owner. Thus answer of issue no. 8 is also positive, showing result answer of issue no. 6 is also affirmative and gift deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is a valid document and the same is binding upon the plaintiff. So all these three issues are decided against the plaintiff. 5. Since main issues were decided against the plaintiff, the issue nos. I, II & V it was held that since the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and he has sought only declaratory decree in respect of declaring the gift deed as void and has not claimed for declaration of his title and recovery of possession, therefore suit is barred by provision of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. As such, suit is not maintainable. It was further observed that record of right has been prepared in the year 1964 within the knowledge of the plaintiff that Ratna Dasi is in possession of the suit land but the same was never challenged within 12 years from the date publication of the record of rights so the suit is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, plaintiff has no cause of action other issues are accordingly, decided against the plaintiff and the suit was also dismissed on contest without cost. 6. The plaintiff assailed the impugned judgment and decree of trial court in Title Appeal No. 60/ 2007 preferred before District Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. Before the appellate court the main objections against impugned judgment and decree of trial court were raised by plaintiff/appellant are as under:- (i) Issue Nos. VI & VII consisting of un-connected and unrelated issues requiring to be dealt it separately for just decision of the suit but the learned court below has committed grave error of law by not discussing them separately and deciding the same on the basis of evidence available on record. VI & VII consisting of un-connected and unrelated issues requiring to be dealt it separately for just decision of the suit but the learned court below has committed grave error of law by not discussing them separately and deciding the same on the basis of evidence available on record. (ii) Lower court has committed grave error of law by ignoring the law laid down in 1994 BBCJ 438 and other cases cited by plaintiff at the time of hearing. The learned trial court failed to consider that the donor Ratna Devi being a daughter belonging to Schedule Tribe was not entitled to transfer any ancestral land by way of gift. (iii) The learned trial court has also failed to consider that the Donee, Gangadhar Singh was in no way related to the family of the appellant, had managed to get a registered deed of Gift in his favour, without the knowledge of the appellant, who is co-sharer of land included in the gift deed. (iv) The learned lower court has over-looked the fact and evidence adduced by the parties , it was established that the parties were guided by their own customary law and Hindu Law is not applicable them. (v) The Lower Court failed to appreciate the fact that permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act without the consent of other co-sharer could not have been granted in respect of the land jointly recorded. (vi) The learned Court below has committed serious error of law by holding that the Scheduled Tribes members are guided by Hindu Succession Act, in spite of the restriction in Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act which has been clearly explained in 1994 BBCJ 438 . (vii) Donor Ratna Dasi had no capacity to give the land which stands jointly recorded in the name of Ratna Dasi and Bimala Bhumij. Bimla Bhumij died unmarried, thereafter her share devolved upon the plaintiff-appellant. Therefore, Ratna Dasi could not transfer the entire area of plot no. 66 and 72 under Khata No. 341 to Gangadhar Singh. Similarly, the lands of Khata No. 226 jointly recorded in the name of Bimala Bhumij and Ratna Dasi, could not be gifted by Ratna Dasi alone as plaintiff/appellant has got due share in the suit Khata. Therefore, Ratna Dasi could not transfer the entire area of plot no. 66 and 72 under Khata No. 341 to Gangadhar Singh. Similarly, the lands of Khata No. 226 jointly recorded in the name of Bimala Bhumij and Ratna Dasi, could not be gifted by Ratna Dasi alone as plaintiff/appellant has got due share in the suit Khata. The land of Khata No. 227 , stands in the name of Bimla and Ratna Devi and the same counld not be transferred by Ratna Devi alone. (viii) The learned court below has further committed illegality in holding that suit was a declaratory suit, but in fact the suit was for declaration that the gift deed no. 2136 dated 15.05.1997, executed by defendant no.1, in favour of defendant no. 2 is null and void, illegal, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. As per the content of the gift deed possession of the land could not be delivered as the area of plots is vague and not identifiable. As such suit is not barred by provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. (ix) The learned Court below has also recorded wrong finding on the point of limitation. The learned appellate court after apprising the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to decide all the issues settled by learned trial court separately and recorded findings thereon. 7. As such issue no. VII was taken up and notice that at para 5 of the plaint, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that in the Bhumij community, married daughter has no right to inherit the property of her father, and as Bhumij community comes under the Scheduled tribe, so Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to them. But, on the other hand, at para 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has taken a contradictory plea and stated that the parties have been sufficiently Hinduised and they are guided by Hindu Law, particularly Mitakshara School of Hindu law in the matter of Succession and inheritance. The learned appellate court has taken into consideration the principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanai Majhi & Anr. versus Ranga Majhi & Ors. The learned appellate court has taken into consideration the principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanai Majhi & Anr. versus Ranga Majhi & Ors. reported in (1999) 1 BLJR 695 , wherein it has been held that aboriginals having non-Hindu origin, can be Hinduised, so as to be governed by Hindu law and for its proof it is required to be found out from the evidence as to the custom in respect of marriage, death, etc. Amongst the aboriginals, there is no custom of Shradh Ceremony. Shradh ceremony is prevalent amongst the Hindus with the convenstion of pind-dans. In the instant case the appellant/plaintiff has been examined as P.W. 1 and he has stated in his cross-examination that they perform Shiv Puja, Kali Puja and Durga Puja with their children. Further that, upon death of Ratna Dasi, he had performed her last rites, shradh etc. and also ceremony of feeding brahmans (Brahman Bhojan). He has also done pind-dan. Defendants have also stated in their written statement that the plaintiff and original defendant no. 1 are guided by Hindu Law and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly divided the issue no. 7 against the plaintiff. 8. While deciding issue no. VIII, the appellate court observed that the plaintiff has admitted in para 10 of his plaint that they are sufficiently Hinduised. The plaintiff upon his cross-examination has also admitted that they performed Durga Puja etc. and that he has also performed shradh of aunt (defendant no.1). From this facts, it has to be concluded that the parties are governed by Hindu law as decided in issue no. VII in the matter of Succession and inheritance. From perusal of record of rights, it transpires that it has been prepared jointly in the name of plaintiff’s father Sambhu Singh and original defendant no.1 Ratna Dasi showing separate possession in the remark column of the record of rights since 1964. Fact of possession over the suit property by the substituted possession. The legal heirs of the original defendant no.2 has also been admitted by the plaintiff himself giving his cross-examination. Fact of possession over the suit property by the substituted possession. The legal heirs of the original defendant no.2 has also been admitted by the plaintiff himself giving his cross-examination. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly observed that though in gift deed some of the plots have been fully mentioned but entire land of all the plots have not been completely transferred rather portion of some plots have been transferred, which discloses that defendant no.1 has transferred the portion of those plots which were in her possession. The remark column of the record of rights also shows that partition between legal heirs of Haru Bhumij prior to 1964. In that view of the matter the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that no coparcener can alienate by way of gift, his undivided interest without the consent of other coparcener is not applicable in the instant case, as partition had already taken place between the legal heirs of deceased Haru Bhumij prior to 1964. Accordingly, there was concurrence with the learned trial court regarding disposal of issue no. VIII also which was decided against the plaintiff. 9. The learned appellant court has taken issue no. VI and observed that P.W. 1 plaintiff himself in his cross examination that Ratna Dasi has given the suit property in gift to Gangadhar Singh. Further upon death of Gangadhar Singh his sons are in possession of the suit property. He has further admitted upon his cross examination that the said gift deed is genuine. It has been admitted by the plaintiff that he as well as original defendant no.1, Ratna Dasi are though belong to the Schedule Tribes but have been sufficiently Hinduised, so as to be guided by the Hindus law. The possession of the plaintiff’s father and the defendant no.1 in the record of right is also shown separately. Therefore, defendant no.1 have got absolute right to execute gift deed in favour of Gangadhar Singh which suffers from no illegality and can’t be said to be void and the said Gangadhar Singh came into possession of the property is also admitted. Similarly issue no. Therefore, defendant no.1 have got absolute right to execute gift deed in favour of Gangadhar Singh which suffers from no illegality and can’t be said to be void and the said Gangadhar Singh came into possession of the property is also admitted. Similarly issue no. V was also conquered with the finding of trial court and it was held that the suit is barred principles of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and barred by limitation also to challenge the wrong entry in the record of rights within twelve years from the date of publication. Accordingly, appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the appellate court. 10. This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was admitted for hearing vide order no.7, dated 28.10.2021 on the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether in view of the 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Statement of the plaintiff made in paragraph no. 10 of the plaint has got any relevance or not, when in fact there is no denial on the statement made at paragraph no.5. (ii) Whether both the court below failed to consider Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 in the instant case, when the fact that the parties are Schedule Tribes has not been disputed by the defendants. (iii) Whether in view of the specific finding that the parties are tribals the court below could have held that Hindu Succession Act will be applied, so far as inheritance is concerned in relation to the parties. 11. The substantial question of law as formulated in this case raises some substantial points for consideration which may be enumerated as under. (i) Whether a community or family has been sufficiently hinduised by following customs and rituals of Hindus, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act will be applicable to them. (ii) Whether the principle of trial tribal community who admits to be Hinduised bar of Section 2 (2) Hindu Succession Act will be applicable in that case. For the proposition of thorough analysis of the above point relevant provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 extracted hereinunder:- Application of Act Section 2 (1) This Act applies:-. (ii) Whether the principle of trial tribal community who admits to be Hinduised bar of Section 2 (2) Hindu Succession Act will be applicable in that case. For the proposition of thorough analysis of the above point relevant provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 extracted hereinunder:- Application of Act Section 2 (1) This Act applies:-. (a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj; (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion; and (c) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. Explanation.—The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion, as the case may be:— (a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion; (b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged; (c) any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. 3. The expression “Hindu” in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is, nevertheless, a person to whom this Act applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section. Section 14. Property of a family Hindu to be her absolute property:- 1. Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Section 14. Property of a family Hindu to be her absolute property:- 1. Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. 2. Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has extraneously argued that it is an admitted position that provision of CNT Act is applicable to the plaintiff and defendant. The provision of Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 is also applicable to the parties. 13. Section 3 thereof provides as under “Powers of Court to ignore admission by member of the scheduled tribes.” Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being inforce, the court shall, in any suit or proceeding in relation to the transfer of land of member of Scheduled Tribes as specified in part III of the Scheduled to the Constitution of India (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950 requires any fact expressly or impliedly admitted by such person to be proved otherwise, than by mere admission and the Deputy Commissioner may also produced evidence in rebuttal. Section 4 deals with amendment to certain laws in their application to the Scheduled areas of Bihar and Jharkhand. Section 4 deals with amendment to certain laws in their application to the Scheduled areas of Bihar and Jharkhand. (1) Code of Civil Procedure Rule 3 Order I. The following provisions have been added “Provided that in suit for declaration or in possession relation to immovable property all member of the Scheduled tribe as specified in part III to the Scheduled in Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950”, the Deputy Commissioner concerned shall also be joined as defendant. (2) Limitation Act, Article 65 of Act of 1953, the Scheduled. In the second column, following points and figures shall be added at end:- “but 30 years in respect of immovable property belong to a member of Scheduled Tribes as specified in part III to the Schedule to the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) order 1950.” Section 71(A) Provides the restoration of land. Section 71(B) Provides Penalties. 14. In the instant case, both the learned court below have based their Judgment on basis of some admission contained in the plaint at para 5 & 10 which are extracted hereunder:- Para 5. That in the Bhumis community, the married daughter has no right to inherit the property of her father and as this Bhumis community comes under Schedule Tribe list according to the Constitution of India, Hindu Succession of 1956 is not applicable to them. Para 10. That the parties having been sufficiently Hinduised, they are guided by Hindu Law, particularly by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law in the matter of Succession and inheritance. 15. From bare reading of both the averments in plaint there is no admission of a plaintiff that they are governed by provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the matter of succession and inheritance. 16. In case of Labishwar Manjhi vs Pran Manjhi And Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 587 :- 6. The question which arises in the present case is, whether the parties who admittedly belong to Santhal tribe are still continuing with their customary tradition or have they after being Hinduised changed their customs to that what is followed by the Hindus. It is in this context when the matter came first before the High Court, the High Court remanded the case for decision in this regard. After remand, the first appellate court recorded the findings, that most of the names of their families of the parties are Hindu names. It is in this context when the matter came first before the High Court, the High Court remanded the case for decision in this regard. After remand, the first appellate court recorded the findings, that most of the names of their families of the parties are Hindu names. Even P.W. 1 admits in the cross examination that they perform the pindas at the time of death of anybody. Females do not use vermillion on the forehead after the death of their husbands, widows do not wear ornaments. Even P.W. 2 admits that they perform Shradh ceremonies for 10 days after the death and after marriage, females use vermillion on their foreheads. The finding is that they are following the customs of the Hindus and not of the Santhal's. In view of such a clear finding, it is not possible to hold that Subsection 2 of Section 2 of Hindu Succession Act excludes the present parties from the application of the said Act. Subsection 2 only excludes members of any Scheduled Tribe admittedly as per finding recorded in the present case though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribe they are Hinduised and they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that Sub-section 2 will not apply to exclude the parties from application of Hindu Succession Act. The High Court fell into error in recording a finding to the contrary. In view of this, the widow of Lakhiram would become the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act, consequently the gift given by her to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were valid gift, hence the suit of respondent No. 1 for setting aside the gift deed and inheritance stand dismissed. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the Judgment in Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 528 wherein the claim for 1/5th share in the amount of compensation on account of land acquisition of a female here was dismissed on the ground that in the tribal community by virtue of provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act it is not applicable on the tribals. 18. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 528 wherein the claim for 1/5th share in the amount of compensation on account of land acquisition of a female here was dismissed on the ground that in the tribal community by virtue of provision of Sub Section 2 of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act it is not applicable on the tribals. 18. In the instant case the plaintiff not only in his pleading but also in his evidence on oath has admitted in clear cut terms that he is professing Hindu rituals and customs and Hinduised and also perform shradh, dasgatra, pinddan after death of any family member and has also performed the said rituals in respect of defendant no.1 after her death. It is also admitted fact that since 1964 after partition of the land between heirs of Haru Bhumij, the name of defendant no. 1 and one Kamla Bhumij was shown in the khatian and their separate possession were also record on definite parcel of land. It is also not disputed that before execution of the gift deed prior permission was also obtained from Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the CNT Act. Therefore, defendant no.1 in her lifetime was exercising independent right over the suit property as absolute owner as such she was capable to alienate the same to any person by way of gift lease or sale subject to the provisions of law. 19. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I don’t find any valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned court below while dismissing the suit of the appellant. I don’t find any merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed.