2025:JHHC:26470 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 484 of 1991 (P) 1. Bibhishan Hansda (died and substituted V/o dt. 11.11.2024) 1(a) Alka Tudu, W/o Late Bibhishan Hansda 1(b) Prem Prakash, S/o Late Bibhishan Hansda 1(c) Dipen Kumar Hansda, S/o Late Bibhishan Hansda All R/o Madhuban, P.O. Kendraghata, P.S. Masalia, Dist. Dumka 2. Nath Hansda @ Sri Nath Hansda, son of Late Lakhan Hansda 3. Ruplal Hansda, son of Late Karan Hansda (deleted vide order dt. 27.09.2013) 4. Sushil Hansda (Minor) 5. Misil Hansda (Minor), both sons of Late Choto Hansda and represented through mother (respondent no. 6) and natural guardian, W/o Late Choto Hansda 6. Latori Tudu, W/o Late Choto Hansda. (expunged V/o dt. 12.04.2013) All residents of Village-Kumardaha (Dhava), P.S. Masalis, Dist. Dumka 7. Kumari Kebe Hansda (Minor) daughter of Late Nunulal Hansda (minor) represented through their uncle guardian Ruplal Hansda resident of village Madhuban, P.S. Masalis, Dist. Dumka. … … Opp. Party /Defendants/Respondents/Appellants -Versus- 1. Surajmani Hansda @ Sarda Hansda, wife of Debi Murmu (expunged V/o dt. 12.04.2013) 2. Debi Murmu, son of Late Chanda Murmu (deleted V/o dt. 27.09.2013) 3. Raghunath Murmu, son of Devi Murmu (expunged V/o dt. 15.04.1999) 3(a) Manoj Murmu, S/o Raghunath Murmu 3(b) Sharmila Murmu, D/o Raghunath Murmu 3(c) Sarita Murmu, D/o Raghunath Murmu Under the natural guardian ship of her grand father Devi Murmu, the respondent no. 2. All residents of Village Madhuban, P.S. Masalia, District Dumka 4. Parmeshwar Murmu, son of Devi Murmu. Resident of village Madhuban, P.s. Masalis, Dist. Dumka 2025:JHHC:26470 2 5. Hari Kanth Marandi (minor), son of Lilu Marandi, represented through father and natural guardian Lilu Marandi, resident of village-Ranga, P.S. Maslis, Dist. Dumka … … Defendants 1st party /Respondents/Respondents 6. Sailendra Tudu 7. Bhawan Tudu, 8. Joseph Tudu 9. Pal Prasanna Tudu 10. Nagendra Tudu Resp. Nos. 6 to 10 S/o Dhangu Tudu, All R/o Village – Madhuban, P.S. Masalis, Dist. Dumka … … Defendant 2nd Party/Resp. 2nd Party/Respondents 11. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka … … Resp. 2nd Party, Resp. 2nd Party/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shio Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar Mahto, Advocate --- 37/26th August 2025 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1991 passed in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1984 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dumka reversing the judgment dated 05.04.1983 (decree signed on 15.04.1983) passed by the learned Sub- ordinate Judge, Dumka in Title Suit No. 18 of 1981. The suit was dismissed on contest. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 20.08.1992 on the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the marriage in agumit form can be equated with gharjamai form of marriage among the Santhals.” 3. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property mentioned in Schedule-‘C’ of the plaint relating to 2025:JHHC:26470 3 Mauza Madhuban, J.B. No. 32, P.S. Maslia, Sub-Division Dumka, District Santhal Pargana recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda, that has been shown in red in in the map annexed to the plaint. 4. The properties of Jamabandi No. 32 was described in Schedule-A of the plaint which was recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda and Raman Soren with separate possession and they were Sarhus. The property recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda was described in Schedule-B of the plaint. Bhaglu Hansda had three sons, namely, Karan, Ram and Lakhan and the land of Ram Hansda was described in Schedule-C of the plaint which was claimed by the plaintiffs. Particulars of customary law of inheritance was given in Schedule-D of the plaint. 5. The suit was dismissed. The learned 1st appellate court allowed the appeal and directed that a preliminary decree be drawn for 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs over schedule B property. The defendants 1st party are the appellants before this court. Case of the plaintiffs 6. The genealogical table has been given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the land of J.B. No. 32 of Village Madhuban corresponding to lands of J.B. No. 4 of village Madhuban of Mr. Macphersion Settlement belonged to the common ancestor, namely, Churka Tudu. The properties of Jamabandi No. 32 was described in Schedule-A of the plaint which was recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda and Raman Soren with separate possession and they were Sarhus. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the land of J.B. No. 32 was partitioned and one share was allotted to Bhaglu Hansda and his wife and another was allotted to Raman Soren and his wife and they were separated. 7. Churka Tudu had no son, but two daughters; the eldest daughter was married to Bhaglu Hansda of village Pakuria and the second daughter was married to Raman Soren of village Kalipathar. On death of Churka 2025:JHHC:26470 4 Tudu, who died before Gantzer’s Settlement Operation, the land of J.B. No. 4 (later on J.B No.32) was inherited and possessed by Churka’s daughters and sons-in-law as per Santhal Customary Law of Inheritance and Succession. 8. It was also asserted that during Gantzer’s Settlement Operation, the brother of Churka Tudu and some others objected and claimed the land, but their claim was disallowed and the property was ultimately recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda and Raman Soren. The property recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda was described in Schedule-B of the plaint. 9. Upon the death of Bhaglu Hansda, it was inherited by his three sons, namely, Karan, Ram and Lakhan. Karan Hansda died about 15 to 16 years ago leaving behind his three sons, namely, Ruplal, Chhoto and Nunulal; Nunulal also expired about six years ago leaving behind two minor daughters, namely, Murudi and Kahan. Lakhan Died in the year 1969 leaving Bibhishan Hansda and Srinath @ Nath Hansda. Ram Hansda died in the year 1968 leaving the plaintiff no. 1 as his heir and successor. The plaintiff No. 1 is Surajmani Hansda who is the daughter of Ram Hansda. The plaintiff no. 2 is the husband of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were the children of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2. 10. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the property in Schedule-B of the plaint was partitioned in three shares one each to Karan, Ram and Lakhan and all were separately possessing the land and paying rent sometimes jointly and sometime separately. However, the land of Ram Hansda was described in Schedule-C of the plaint. 11. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are residing in plot no. 532 in the property allocated to Ram Hansda and Ram Hansda had no son. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that Ram Hansda brought his daughter Surajmani and her husband Debi Murmu in “Agumit” in the year 1357 B.S. which is equivalent to 1951 and entrusted the cultivation and house hold affairs to them. Ram Hansda thereafter on 2025:JHHC:26470 5 9th Asarh 1357 B.S. executed a Gharjamai paper in presence of the villagers, signed by him and the villagers, including father of defendant nos. 1 and 3. Since that time, plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 have been living in the house of Ram Hansda and have been cultivating the land and the plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 were born in the house of Ram Hansda where they are living. 12. It was further case of the plaintiffs that during the lifetime of Ram Hansda, the plaintiffs help him in cultivating lands and managed all affairs of the family. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that on the death of Ram Hansda, the property of Ram Hansda was inherited by the plaintiffs as gharjami coupled with others customary law of inheritance whose particulars are given in Schedule-D of the plaint. 13. Schedule-D of the plaint is quoted as under: - “Schedule-D Well settled custom prevailing in the locality and in the community which are as follows: - (1) Married daughter with her husband even with their children as per custom can be brought in his house and be settled permanently which is known as Agumit Gharjamai and in such Agumit gharjamai, on the death of the father-in-law, his property passes to the son-in-law as in the case of Gharjamai form of marriage. (2) If a male Santhal separate from brother or other agnates dies leaving daughter married or unmarried but no son or direct male descendant, the property inherits by his daughter, not by the brother or other agnates. (3) The person who is resident of the village and has taken part in the management of the family jote is the only person entitled to succeed to it heir on his death.” 14. The cause of action arose when the defendants, being the agnates, started disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. The proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and another under Section 144/145 of Cr.P.C. was initiated. It was their case that after the order dated 24.12.1979 decided against the plaintiffs, the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs 2025:JHHC:26470 6 from the suit land and demolished some of the ridges (Ail) of their land. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that they were the rightful owners of the suit property. Case of the defendants 15. A joint written statement was filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 6 wherein genealogy etc. and the name of the common ancestor was admitted. However, it was stated that the daughters of Churka Tudu were married in gharjamai form and therefore their husbands, Bhaglu Hansda and Raman Soren were recorded in respect of J.B. No. 32 during Gantzer’s Settlement Operation with their separate area in the remarks column. 16. It was the further case of the defendants that Ram Hansda was one of the sons of Bhaglu Hansda, but he pre-deceased his father and so after death of Bhaglu Hansda, his two surviving sons, Karan Hansda and Lakhan Hansda inherited the lands recorded in separate possession of Bhaglu Hansda and therefore it was denied that after death of Bhaglu Hansda, he had three surviving sons. It was further stated that Ram Hansda died in the year 1940 leaving behind his only minor daughter, plaintiff no. 1 and Bhaglu Hansda, the recorded tenant died in the year 1960 and after his death two surviving sons Karan Hansda and Lakhan Hansda died in the year 1965 and 1969 respectively. It was further asserted that Ram Hansda, father of the plaintiff no. 1, did not succeed Bhaglu Hansda. 17. It was their further case that the land recorded in the name of Bhaglu Hansda was never separated and their successors were still in joint possession. It was stated that at the time of death of Ram Hansda, the plaintiff no. 1 was a minor girl and therefore Karan Hansda and Lakhan Hansda looked after her and got her married in ordinary form with one Sadhu Marandi of village Dumdumi. However, plaintiff no. 1 divorced her husband and remarried with Debi Murmu of village Agojori and 2025:JHHC:26470 7 thereafter, the plaintiff no. 1 with plaintiff no. 2 and plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 have been living in village Agojori. 18. It was alleged by the defendants 1st party that in view of the aforesaid facts, the plea of agumit in 1357 B.S., entrustment of land to plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, execution of gharjamai paper was bogus and false and any gharjamai paper in possession of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 is a forged and fabricated document. It was their further case that neither plaintiffs have ever been living in Village Madhuban nor they have cultivated any land of J.B. No. 32 of mouza Madhuban. It was their case that Ram Hansda could not succeed his father and therefore the question of succession of the plaintiffs did not arise. Arguments of the appellants 19. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is not in dispute that the parties are governed by Santhal Custom. He has submitted that the suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the suit land and also for delivery of possession. He has further submitted that the custom governing the parties was stated in Schedule-D of the plaint and has referred to the Bihar District Gazetteer Santhal Pargana by P.C. Roy Choudhary page no. 951. The learned counsel has submitted that gharjamai form of marriage is totally distinct from agumit gharjamai. 20. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court held that the plaintiff no. 1 was married to plaintiff no. 2 Debi Murmu in saga or chuman form which was never converted into agumit gharjamai as asserted by the defendants and the issue was decided in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. However, the learned 1st appellate court reversed this finding and held that the plaintiff no. 1 was married with plaintiff no. 2 in agumit gharjamai form. 2025:JHHC:26470 8 21. The learned senior counsel has submitted that so far as the claim of partition amongst Ram Hansda and his two brothers are concerned, the same was disbelieved by both the courts. 22. The learned senior has further submitted that so far as the document of gharjamai (Exhibit-1) is concerned, the same was disbelieved by the learned trial court, but this finding was reversed by the learned 1st appellate court. He has submitted that gharjamai form of marriage and agumit form of marriage are two different concepts and since the plaintiffs had pleaded the custom, it was for the plaintiffs to prove the same. He has submitted that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the custom. 23. The learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 211 (Som Hembrom & Others vs. Sakal Soren & Others) and has referred to paragraph 30 of the said judgment to submit that there is nothing like agumit gharjamai form of marriage in Santhal Custom. He has also referred to paragraph 31 of the aforesaid judgment to submit that the Santhal Tribal Law is quite definite for not allowing female to inherit but the law was gradually changing in some of the areas whereby Santhals had allowed daughters to inherit along with sons. The learned senior counsel submits that the change in customary law was required to be proved by the plaintiffs in order to claim inheritance, but the plaintiffs have measurably failed to prove the same. Arguments of the respondents 24. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has placed the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court passed in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1984 and has referred to paragraph 7 to 14 thereof. The learned counsel has submitted that every aspect of the matter has been discussed by the learned 1st appellate court while reversing the decree. He has submitted that as recorded in paragraph 7 itself, the Custom as mentioned in Schedule-D was not specifically denied 2025:JHHC:26470 9 in the written statement, rather the case of the defendants was that there has been no agumit with respect to plaintiff no. 2 and the gharjamai paper i.e. Exhibit-1 was forged and fabricated. Rejoinder argument of the appellants 25. In response, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred to paragraph 22 of the appellate court’s judgment and has submitted that one of the pre-conditions of gharjamai marriage is that the boy has to leave his parental home and relinquish his rights over the property of his parents, but the plaintiff herself deposed that her husband owns some property in village Agojori, which is his parental village. Findings of this Court 26. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the plaintiffs, there is a well-settled custom prevailing in the locality that married daughter with her husband, even with a children, can be brought to the house of her father and be settled permanently and this is known as “agumit gharjamai” and in such agumit gharjamai on the death of the daughter, his property passes to son-in-law as in the case of gharjamai form of marriage. Thus, the custom as pleaded reveals that agumit gharjamai is an act which takes place after marriage and is different from gharjamai form of marriage. 27. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that Ram Hansda brought plaintiff no. 1 (his daughter) and plaintiff no. 2 (his son-in-law) in agumit in the year 1357 B.S. and entrusted cultivation and house-hold affairs to them. Their further case was that Ram Hansda thereafter on 9th Asarh 1357 B.S. executed a gharjamai paper in presence of villagers which was signed by him and villagers including father of defendant nos. 1 and 3; since then, the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 have been living in the house of Ram Hansda and have been cultivating the land and the plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 were born in the house of Ram Hansda. It was their case that after the 2025:JHHC:26470 10 death of Ram Hansda, they inherited the property as plaintiff no. 2 was brought in the family of Ram Hansda by agumit. 28. The defendants, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid stand by asserting that the plaintiffs have been living in the village of plaintiff no. 2 at Agojori; the defendants denied the plea of agumit and also denied the execution of gharjamai paper. However, custom of agumit has not been specifically denied. 29. This Court finds that at the stage of trial, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidences with respect to the following issues: - “1. Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether there was any partition of Schedule ‘B’ Lands between Karan, Raman and Lakhan after the death of their father Bhaglu Hansda? 3. Whether Ram Hansda predeceased his father Bhaglu Hansda as alleged by the defendants? 4. Whether Ram Hansda brought his daughter Surajmani Hansda plaintiff no. 1 and her husband plaintiff no. 2 in Agumit gharjamai in 1357 B.S. as asserted by the plaintiffs or plaintiff no. 1 Surajmani Hansda was married to plaintiff no. 2 in saga or chumana form which was never converted into Agumit gharjamai as alleged by the defendants? 5. Whether the story of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiffs is correct? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed?” 30. The learned trial court while deciding issue no. 4 recoded that as per Santhal Customary Law of Inheritance, a girl married only in gharjamai form is entitled to inherit her father’s property and in no case a santhal girl who is married in chuman or in ordinary form is entitled to inherit the property of her father. It was also observed that as per the case 2025:JHHC:26470 11 of the plaintiffs, Ram Hansda had brought plaintiff No. 1 and 2 in agumit gharjamai in the year 1357 B.S. corresponding to the year 1951 and executed gharjamai paper (Exhibit-1) on 9th Asarh 1357 B.S. The learned trial court considered the oral evidences which also referred to agumit gharjamai form. However, the learned trial court in paragraph 22 observed that the plaintiffs have based their claim purely on custom, but they have not proved the custom. The learned trial court ultimately held that the plaintiff no. 1 was married to plaintiff no. 2 in saga or chuman form of marriage which was never converted into agumit gharjamai as asserted by the defendants. The Exhibit-1, which was the gharjamai paper said to have been executed after plaintiff no. 1 and 2 was taken by Ram Hansda in agumit form, was disbelieved by the learned trial court. Paragraph 27 of the trial court’s judgment is quoted as under: - “27. Considering the entire evidence on record along with the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the plaintiff Surajmani was married to plaintiff no. 2 Debi Murmu in saga or chuman form which was never converted into Agumit Gharjamai as asserted by the defendants. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.” 31. So far as the issue nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the learned trial court held that there has been no partition between the three sons of Bhaglu Hansda and his son Ram Hansda pre-deceased his father Bhaglu Hansda as alleged by the defendants and ultimately decided issue nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. This finding has been recorded in paragraph 33 of the trial court’s judgment, which is quoted as under: - “33. Having considered the entire evidence on record along with the facts and circumsktances of the case, I hold that there was no partition between the three sons of Bhaglu Hansda and Ram Hansda predeceased his father Bhaglu Hansda as alleged by the defendants. These two issues are 2025:JHHC:26470 12 accordingly decided against the pliantiffs and in favour of the defendants.” 32. So far as issue no. 5 is concerned, the learned trial court ultimately held in paragraph 37 that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land as alleged and their dispossession as alleged. 33. So far as issue nos. 1 and 6 are concerned, the learned trial court held in paragraph 38 that the plaintiffs have got no valid cause of action for the suit and they are not entitled to any relief claimed and ultimately the suit was dismissed. 34. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the points for determination have been mentioned in paragraph 6 as under: - “(i) Whether plaintiff no. 1 was married to plaintiff no. 2 in agumit-gharjamai form? (ii) Whether Ram Hansda had predeceased his father Bhaglu Hansda? (iii) Whether Schedule ‘B’ properties were previously partitioned amongst the sons of Bhaglu Hansda? (iv) Whether, in santhal custom, in case of agumit Gharjamai the property of the father-in-law is succeeded by the son-in- law as in the case of Gharjamai form of marriage? (v) Whether, in santhal custom, if a male santhal separate from his agnates died leaving behind a daughter but no son, is property is inherited by his daughter and not by his agnates?” 35. While deciding the most important issue, which concerns the substantial question of law in this case, is point of determination no. 4, which has been decided vide paragraph 7 onwards, the learned 1st appellate court has taken note of the fact that in Schedule-D of the plaint, the plaintiffs have enumerated one of the customs of santhals, that is, in case of agumit gharjamai the properties of father-in-law passes in the hands of his son-in-law after the death of the former as in the case of that of gharjamai form of marriage and observed that there is no specific denial of this custom in the written statement. 2025:JHHC:26470 13 36. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter considered the materials on record and referred to the Gantzer’s Survey Report. The learned 1st appellate court has also considered Bihar District Gazetteer Santhal Pargana by P.C. Roy Choudhary whereby at page no. 951 it has been recorded as under: - “The father in default of a son in an old age can create an agumit, i.e., bringing of the married daughter with her husband to his own house. After the death of the father his property passes as a gharjamai form of marriage.” 37. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that it was proved that in Santhal Custom, son-in-law, in case of agumit form, is entitled to succeed to the properties of his father-in-law. Paragraph 13 and 14 of the appellate court’s judgment are quoted as under: - “13. At para 46 of the interlocutory chapter of Gantzers survey and settlement report it is prescribed that according to Santhal tribe custom it is permissible for a man with daughters and no son to take a son-in-law into in his house as gharjamal and to give him thereby the right of a son and that a father-in-law cannot at a latter stage convert an ordinary son-in-law into a gharjamai. On the other hand, a Ghardijamai is not entitled to succeed to his father-in-law's properties. However, we are not concerned with Ghardi- Jamai There is no mention of another form of marriage, which is called agumit and consequently there is also no mention of the rights of such son-in-law married in aguit form of marriage. However, in the District Gazetter of Santhal Parganas by P.C. Rai Choudhary, it is mentioned at page 951 that the father in default of a son in the old age can create a agumit, i.e. bringing a married daughter with her husband to with his own house. After the death of the father his property passes as a gharjamal form of marriage. This prove that as in gharjamai form of marriage so also in agumit form of marriage, the son-in-law succeeds to the properties of his father in-law. The learned lawyer for the respondents relied upon AIR 1973, PAT-206, where the statement made in District Gazetter were not relied upon to prove a custom. In that case the question was of a different 2025:JHHC:26470 14 custom as to whether a Gharjamal son-in-law is entitled to succeed to the properties of his father-in-law even when he becomes widower during the life terms of his father-in-law and even if he remarried another girl during the life time of original father-in-law? On that point of custom there was conflicts of views in the records of rights of Gantzers vis-a- vis P.C. Rai, District Gazetteer and in that circumstance Gantzers record of right was relied upon in preference to Chandhey District Gazetteers. But in the case of hand we are dealing with a quite different point of Santhal custom and secondly on this point and issue there is no contrary view of Gantzers. 14. Thus it is proved that in santhal custom, the son-in-law in case of agumit form, is entitled to succeed to the properties of his father-in-law.” 38. It is also important to note that the learned 1st appellate court considered Exhibit-1, which is the paper of gharjamai, as the most important evidence on record and dealt with its genuineness in paragraph 19 onwards and ultimately held that the learned trial court has wrongly held that the gharjamai paper was forged and fabricated. It was recorded that this is the document which was executed by Ram Hansda in favour of plaintiff no. 2 on 9th Asarh 1357 B.S. in which, besides other, Lakhan Hansda (father of the defendant no. 1) and Karan Hansda (father of defendant no. 3) had also put their signatures and Lakhan Hansda and Karan Hansda were full brothers of Ram Hansda. It was observed that to this fact, there was simply vague denial in the written statement. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that the documents of gharjamai (Exhibit-1) was a genuine document. 39. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the deposition of PW-1 who admitted in paragraph 17 of her evidence that her husband Debi Murmu owned some land in village Agojori, which is his parental village. On the basis of this, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents before the 1st appellate court that it meant that Debi Murmu had not relinquished his share in his parental property. The 2025:JHHC:26470 15 learned 1st appellate court recorded that PW-1 had not stated that the plaintiff no. 2 had succeeded to the properties of the father at village Agojori and there was no legal bar if the gharjamai or agumit gharjamai also acquired some properties in the original village home of his father. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held in paragraph 23 that the plaintiff no. 1 was married with plaintiff no. 2 in agumit gharjamai form and the finding of the learned trial court was in incorrect. 40. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded in paragraph 28 considering the evidences on record that the case of the defendants that Ram Hansda had pre-deceased his father was not proved and the contrary finding of the learned trial court was held to be wrong. Further, the learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 29 referred to Gantzer’s Report on the point of succession, as the plea of previous partition was rejected, and ultimately decided the share of the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/3 of Schedule B property. 41. This Court finds that so far as the substantial question of law as to Whether the marriage in agumit form can be equated with gharjamai form of marriage among the Santhals is concerned, it is crystal clear from the discussions above, particularly the gazetteer report by P.C. Roy Choudhary at page 951 that the father, in default of a son in an old age, can create an agumit by bringing the married daughter with her husband. Meaning thereby, the agumit happens with respect to a daughter and son - in -law who is already married. So far as gharjamai form of marriage is concerned, the same is a different concept and marriage itself is performed in gharjamai form. It has been observed therein that in case of agumit, after the death of father, his property passes as gharjamai form of marriage. 42. So far as the judgment relied upon by the appellants reported in 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 211 (supra) is concerned, this Court finds that in paragraph 18 of the judgment it was recorded that the main point for 2025:JHHC:26470 16 consideration was whether the mother of the plaintiffs was married in agumit gharjamai form and hence she succeeded and came in possession of the property after the death of her husband or whether she was married in ordinary form of marriage and hence mother of the plaintiffs , and consequently the plaintiffs, got any right, title and interest in the properties of her father. One of the main arguments which were advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs -appellants in the said case was as to whether in absence of any specific denial in the written statement about non-existence of agumit gharjamai form of marriage, any evidence could be looked into for deciding the matter. The said argument was taken up first in paragraph 21 of the judgment, wherein it was specifically recorded that the defendants had specifically denied the statement that mother of the plaintiffs was married in agumit gharjamai form of marriage and held that the appellants were under the total misconception and the High Court rejected the aforesaid submission on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants. Further in the said case, the District Gazetteer of Santhal Pargana by P.C. Roy Choudhary was not placed and consequently not taken into consideration and the judgment was primarily based in the Gantzer’s Settlement Report, 1922-35. 43. In the present case, not only the aforesaid District Gazeteer of Santhal Pargana by P.C. Roy Choudhary has been taken into consideration by the learned court, but it has also been recorded that the Schedule-D of the plaint has referred to one of the customs of Santhal, i.e., in case of agumit gharjamai, the properties of father-in-law passes in the hands of son-in-law after death of father-in-law as in the case of gharjamai form of marriage and it was also observed that there was no specific denial of this custom in the written statement. This is over and above the fact that the custom was also taken into consideration in the light of the Bihar District Gazetteer Santhal Pargana by P.C. Roy Choudhary and ultimately it was held that it was proved that in Santhal 2025:JHHC:26470 17 Custom, son-in-law in case of agumit form, was entitled to succeed to the properties of his father-in-law. Thus, the present case is not only different on facts from the case decided in 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 211 (supra), but also different while considering the materials placed on record by the parties. Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 44. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that taking of a daughter and her husband in agumit form is not the same as performing marriage of daughter in gharjamai form. Further, as per the aforesaid gazetteer report and considered by the learned 1st appellate court, agumit form and gharjamai form, acquire the same legal status, so far as inheritance is concerned although they are different concepts. Thus, it is held that agumit is different from marriage in gharjamai form but acquire the same legal status, so far as inheritance is concerned. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered. The learned 1st appellate court has rightly held after considering the materials on record that it has been proved that in santhal custom, the son-in-law in case of agumit form, is entitled to succeed to the properties of his father-in-law. 45. This is over and above the fact that the learned 1st appellate court has held that Exhibit-1, which was the document of gharjamai, was duly proved in which none less than the father of the defendant no. 1 and the father of the defendant no. 3 were the signatories. 46. However, so far as the claim of inheritance by the plaintiffs is concerned, the same remains undisturbed in view of the findings recorded by the learned 1st appellate court taking into consideration the materials on record and holding that the plaintiffs would be entitled to 1/3rd share in the schedule B property recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiff no.1 /father in law of the plaintiff no.2/ and grandfather of the plaintiffs no. 3 and 4. 47. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 2025:JHHC:26470 18 48. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 49. Let this judgment be communicated to the courts concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 26.08.2025 Mukul/- Uploaded on: 10.11.2025