ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Rita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. The appellant has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment dated 17.09.2009 and Decree dated 09.10.2009 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, (F.T.C) Dumka, dismissing the Title (Partition) Appeal No. 26 of 2007 and confirming the judgment dated 31.07.2007 and Decree dated 14.08.2007 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 151 of 2003 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Dumka. 3. The appellant-plaintiff had instituted Title (Partition) Suit No. 151 of 2003 for a decree to the extent of half share in Jamabandi No.21 /17 in Village - Chandubathan, P.S- Saraiyahat, District- Dumka, and for appointment of Amin Commissioner to carve out his share and for delivery of possession to him. The said Title (Partition) Suit was numbered as Title (Partition) Suit No. 151 of 2003. It transpires from the judgment of both the courts that the case of the appellant/plaintiff is that appellant/plaintiff Jata Murmu who finds place in plaint of Title (Partition) Suit No.151 of 2003, is the resident of Village - Chandubathan, P.S- Saraiyahat, District- Dumka. The land of Jamabandi No.17 at the time of Gantzer settlement operation was recorded in the name of Doman Hembrom, Burwa Hembrom and Jholha Hembrom. The new Jamabandi No. is 21. Doman Hembrom died issueless, Gudwa Hembrom has one son Thaju Hembrom who died leaving behind Nunwa and Naiki. Nunwa died issueless and Naiki died leaving behind Devilal and Ramka Hembrom (defendant). Jhola Hembrom died leaving behind his daughter Sumi @ Paklu who was married in Gharjamai form with Matla Murmu who died leaving behind Baburam Murmu. Babulal was married with Mundari Hansda and Jata Murmu is their sons. After death of Jholha Hansda his daughter Sumi inherited the land and on her death her son Baburam Marandi and in this way Jata Murmu has inherited her land. The appellant/plaintiff his father and grant-mother were in joint possession of the suit land with defendant first party, their father and grant-father and it was not convenient to remain joint so, the appellant/plaintiff demanded amicable partition of the suit land from the defendant/respondent, but they did not agree, hence the suit was instituted. 4. The appellant/plaintiff his father and grant-mother were in joint possession of the suit land with defendant first party, their father and grant-father and it was not convenient to remain joint so, the appellant/plaintiff demanded amicable partition of the suit land from the defendant/respondent, but they did not agree, hence the suit was instituted. 4. On notice the respondents/defendant appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that parties are Santhals and they are governed by Santhal Customary Law of inheritance and succession where female are not heirs. About the claim of recorded tenant, the case of the appellant/plaintiff is admitted. But the genealogy is incomplete and misleading. Surviving sons of Nunwa Murmu namely, Amit Lal Hembrom, Sunilal Hembrom, Naiki Hembrom, Demda Hembrom and widow of Naiki Hembrom namely, Thuraki Soren are not made party. Paklu was married in ordinary form of marriage with Matla Murmu and thus, the genealogy is not correct. Jhola Hembrom pre-deceased his brother namely, Doman Hembrom and Gudwa Hembrom who performed his last rites and inherited his interest in the suit land to the exclusion of his daughter Paklu Hembrom. Doman Hembrom died with leaving behind his brother Gurwa Hembrom, who has inherited the property and came in possession of the suit land. Paklu was married with Matla Murmu of Village – Badrampur and was residing in her Sasural. Her husband inherited land of his father in village: Badrampur and till his death, he remained in possession. Thereafter, his son Baburam Murmu and after his death the appellant/plaintiff Jata Murmu has inherited and possessed the land at village- Badrampur. He never reside in Village -Chandubathan. The appellant/plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and he has no cause of action. 5. In the light of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court entered into the lis and formulated seven issues to decide the case. The appellant/plaintiff has examined four witnesses i.e. P.W.1- Jata Murmu, P.W.2- Karma Tudu, P.W.3- Maku Baskey and P.W.4- Kutilal Murmu and the defendants have also examined four witnesses i.e. D.W.1- Devilal Hembrom, D.W.2- Budhdev Murmu, D.W.3- Devasi Baskey and D.W.4- Sitaram. The documents were also exhibited. The appellant/plaintiff has examined four witnesses i.e. P.W.1- Jata Murmu, P.W.2- Karma Tudu, P.W.3- Maku Baskey and P.W.4- Kutilal Murmu and the defendants have also examined four witnesses i.e. D.W.1- Devilal Hembrom, D.W.2- Budhdev Murmu, D.W.3- Devasi Baskey and D.W.4- Sitaram. The documents were also exhibited. The Trial Court discussed the evidences of P.W. 1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, and the evidences of DWs have also been examined by the learned Trial Court, and while deciding the issues, the Trial Court came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has not been able to prove his case and, accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved with this, the appellant/plaintiff filed appeal before the 5th Additional District Judge, (F.T.C) Dumka, being Title (Partition) Appeal No. 26 of 2007. The learned Appellate Court has also examined the documents and the witnesses of the parties. The appellant/plaintiff P.W.1 has stated that he has not seen the marriage of Paklu and he cannot say how the same was performed. Karma Tudu P.W. 2 has also given his examination-in-chief on affidavit and further says that Paklu Hembrom died 20 years ago. He has also attended the Saradh. He had not seen marriage of Paklu. Maku Baskey P.W.3 has filed her examination-in-chief on affidavit and further says that she has seen Doman, Gairuwa and Jholha 4 to 5 years ago and Jholha died first, a fact stated in support of the defendant/respondent case. Baburam was son of Paklu and he predeceased her. She had not seen any Gharjamai form of marriage in her village and despite her claim that she was young at the time of marriage of Paklu she cannot say about the method of her marriage. Matla predeceased Paklu. Putilal Murmu P.W.4 was aged about 55 years at the time of his examination in court below, but he stated that Saradh of Jholha was not performed by his brother and at the same time he fails to disclose the name of the person who has performed his Saradh. 7. Almost all part of the case he has shown his ignorance although, he claims that he heard about Gharjamai form of marriage of Paklu, but he has not given the details. 7. Almost all part of the case he has shown his ignorance although, he claims that he heard about Gharjamai form of marriage of Paklu, but he has not given the details. After examination of the appellant/plaintiff witnesses the learned Appellate Court came to the finding that none of the witnesses was able to prove the Gharjamai forms of marriage of Paklu with Matla Murmu, and in support of their claim of possessing the land in question and in support of their claim of possession of the land in question the defendants have filed rent receipt Ext.A to A/4. The appellant/plaintiff, on the other hand has failed to bring on record any such documentary evidence to prove his possession over the suit land. None of the witnesses examined by both the sides is able to say about the date/time of death of Jholha Hembrom. Marriage of his daughter Paklu with Matla Murmu, their exact way of marriage and whether their marriage was in Gharjamai form or not. To claim the partition in the property, the appellant/plaintiff was required to produce concrete evidence to show that Paklu Murmu was married in Gharjamai form and after that Matla Murmu (her husband) severed his relation with biological parents and was having no right, title and interest in their property but the evidence in this case are otherwise. The learned Appellate Court has also came to the finding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove this case and the appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court judgment was affirmed. 8. Aggrieved with that, appellant has filed the Second Appeal. Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court below have not considered the evidences and the documents adduced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff in its true spirit. He further submits that there is perversity in the judgment of the Appellate Court and the substantial question of law is involved in this case and submits that Second Appeal is fit to be admitted. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 opposed the argument of the counsel for the appellant and submits that there is no perversity in the Appellate Court judgment and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and thus, Second appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 opposed the argument of the counsel for the appellant and submits that there is no perversity in the Appellate Court judgment and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and thus, Second appeal is fit to be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has entered into the lis and discussed the evidences adduced by the parties and the documents relied by the parties in detail and both the fact findings courts have come to concurrent finding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to make out the case of partition. 11. This Court also finds that P.W.1, P.W.2 P.W.3 and P.W.4 have not been able to prove how the marriage was in Gharjamai form. Thus, the argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is not accepted as there is a threadbare discussion of the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and this Court further finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this case. 12. Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.