Judgment S.ALI AHMAD, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of about 35 bighas of land, being western half, comprised within Jamabandi No. 64 situate in Mauza Manikdih within Raneshwar police station in the district of Santhal Parganas was dismissed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred against that decree, but the same was dismissed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Dumka, Santhal Parganas. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed. 2. It is not in dispute that one Herma Hembrom was the recorded tenant of Jamabandi No. 64 of village Manikdih, who died leaving behind his two sons, Churka Hembrom and Chandra Mohan Hembrom. Churka Hembrom died in state of jointness with his brother Chandra Mohan Hembrom and his son Rameshwar Hembrom (the original plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the suit and was substituted by the present appellants). The plaintiffs say that Rameshwar Hembrom was joint with his uncle Chandra Mohan Hembrom, who died leaving behind his daughter Rani Hembrom, who was married to one Anand Tudu and she was living with her husband at village Tarni. According to the plaintiffs, the interest of Chandra Mohan Hembrom on his death devolved upon Rameshwar Hembrom and Rani Hembrom (defendant No. 1) her sons did not get any right to the property left by Chandra Mohan Hembrom as they were governed by the Santhal customary law in the matter of inheritance and succession. Further, the case of the plaintiff-appellants was that the defendant-respondents, namely, Rani Hembrom and her son set up a false claim to half of the land in suit on the basis of an amicable partition between Chandra Mohan Hembrom and Churka Hembrom. It is said that the dispute between the parties led to a proceeding under S.145 of the Criminal P.C. which was decided against the plaintiffs on 1-9-1969. After that decision, the plaintiffs say, they were dispossessed which necessitated filing of the suit giving rise to this appeal. 3. The defendants contested the suit. Their main defence was that there was a partition between Churka Hembrom and Chandra Mohan Hembrom and as a result of that partition the land in suit fell to the share of Chandra Mohan Hembrom. Further their defence was that Rani Hembrom, defendant No. 1, was married in customary Gharjamai form. 3. The defendants contested the suit. Their main defence was that there was a partition between Churka Hembrom and Chandra Mohan Hembrom and as a result of that partition the land in suit fell to the share of Chandra Mohan Hembrom. Further their defence was that Rani Hembrom, defendant No. 1, was married in customary Gharjamai form. It is said that according to the custom amongst the Santhals, if the marriage is in Gharjamai form then the son-in-law severs all connections with his natural parents and becomes the adopted son of his father-in-law. It is said that according to the custom the Gharjamai inherits the father-in-law. Further it is said that the suit lands which were allotted to Chandra Mohan Hembrom on partition were being cultivated by Chandra Mohan Hembrom himself and after the marriage of Rani Hembrom her Gharjamai husband used to cultivate them. 4. The courts below have concurrently held that there was a partition between Churka Hembrom and Chandra Mohan Hembrom and as a result of that partition the land in suit fell to the share of Chandra Mohan Hembrom. The courts below have also held that Rani Hembrom was married in Gharjamai form and according to the Santhal custom, her husband Anand Tudu became the adopted son of Chandra Mohan Hembrom. Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants says that if Chandra Mohan Hembrom would have died before Anand Tudu then he had no case because according to the Santhal custom he would have inherited his father-in-law. But he says that Anand Tudu pre-deceased Chandra Mohan Hembrom and since amongst the Santhals no female inherits, therefore, the property to the exclusion of her son will go to his nephew Rameshwar Hembrom (the original plaintiff). It appears that this aspect of the matter was not pressed in either of the two courts below. But the question raised by Mr. Chatterji is purely one of law and is not dependent on investigation of any fact. I, therefore, permitted him to urge this point. 5. There is no dispute between the parties that Gharjamai form of marriage is one of the recognised form amongst the Santhals. There is also no dispute between the parties that the Gharjamai son-in-law becomes the adopted son of the father-in-law. I, therefore, permitted him to urge this point. 5. There is no dispute between the parties that Gharjamai form of marriage is one of the recognised form amongst the Santhals. There is also no dispute between the parties that the Gharjamai son-in-law becomes the adopted son of the father-in-law. The District Gazetteer of Santhal Parganas printed in the year 1965 by the Superintendent, Secretariat Press, Patna says the following about the Gharjamai marriage :- "In Appendix I, the extract from the Gantzers settlement report has been given which says that the Santhal Tribal law is quite consistent in not allowing females to inherit the land but it is open to a male having no son but a daughter to take his son-in-law to his house as a Gharjamai and to give him all the rights of a son such a Gharjamai cuts off all connections with his fathers family and he becomes for all tenets and purposes the son of his father-in-law. A Gharjamai can be adopted only by deliberate public act in the presence of the village community at the time of marriage." A perusal of the aforesaid quotation makes it quite clear that the Gharjamai cuts off all connections with his fathers family and he becomes for all tenets and purposes the son of his father-in-law. The position is, therefore, like that of an adopted son in Hindu Law. Admittedly amongst the Santhals if the son pre-decreases his father then on the death of the father the sons of the pre-deceased son inherit the property. In this case Anand Tudu by virtue of Gharjamai marriage had become for all tenets and purposes the son of the father-in-law. All purposes will naturally include the purpose of inheritance also. Therefore, in my opinion, the fact that Anand Tudu pre-deceased his father-in-law will not disentitle his sons from inheriting the property of Chandra Mohan Hembrom. 6 For the above reasons, I do not see any merit in this appeal which is dismissed but without costs. S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. 7 I agree.