The instant second appeal has been preferred against the non-concurrent judgment and decree dated 30.5.2009 (decree sealed and signed on 16.6.2009) passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Title Appeal No. 12/ 2008 setting aside the judgment dated 30.9.2008 (decree dated 20.1'1.2008) passed by Sub-Judge-II. Jamtara in Title Suit No. 60/92.

2. The Appeal is listed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. The contesting defendant had filed a caveat and. they are represented by their counsel. The respective counsel have agreed that the appeal may be decided finally at the stage of 'Admission' itself.

3. At the very outset, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants pointed out that he has raised five substantial questions of law in the appeal. After hearing him at length, I am satisfied that the only substantial question of law which arises for consideration, is enumerated below-

"Whether finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court on Point No.-III, holding that registered Deed Exhibit-2, i.e. deed of declaration as 'Gharjamai' of Fagu treating the same as deed of transfer is in violation of Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act is erroneous and unsustainable?"

4. I proceed to decide this appeal on the aforesaid question raised in the appeal.

5. The plaintiff preferred the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and confirmation of possession of the suit land. Alternatively, the relief of recovery of possession, if found to be not in possession alongwith perpetual injunction, was claimed.

6. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was originally recorded in the name of one Jura Marandi who had four daughters and one son. The son Babulal Marandi and three daughters died issueless before the last survey settlement. It was further pleaded that Jura Marandi got his daughter Badani Majhain married with Fagu Hembram in the customary "Gharjamai" form and the plaintiffs live in the house of Jura Marandi, being only son of Fagu Hembramand Badani Majhain. The plaintiff Lobin Hembram claimed his right on the basis of his father and mother being entitled for the property of Jura Marandi and that he is the only survivor, since the marriage of the appellant's parents was performed under the customary "Ghar Jamai" form. The defendant attempted to! dispossess the plaintiff and also created continuous problems in occupation of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

7. The trial court framed a number of issues. The• main issue for consideration was issue no. 7.

"Whether Jura Marandi had married his daughter Badani Majhain with fagu Hembram in Gharjamai form of marriage?" thereby, the entitlement of the plaintiff for the relief claimed in the suit.

8. The trial court examined. as many as 14 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and nine witnesses on behalf of the defendant. The Ext.-2 is a document which was written in the year 1956 by Jura Marandi and the recital of the said document is to the effect that marriage of Badani and Fagu took place 34-35 years back in the customary "Ghar Jamai" form and they have been living alongwith Jura Marandi and thereby only claimant of the property in question.

9. The trial court decided issue no. 7 in favour of the plaintiff and interpreted Ext.-2-aforesaid document written by jura Marandi. The claim of the defendant that the said document is the 'Will' as per' under Section 20 of the Santhal pargana Tenancy Act, was not accepted by the Trial Court.

10. The suit was decreed by the trial court confirming the contention of the plaintiff that' the marriage of his parent was in the customary "Ghar Jamai" form of marriage and the oral evidence as well as the recital of the document-Ext.-2 is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the said document was not a "Will". The defendant Satya Marandi and three others filed a Title Appeal No. 12/08 in the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara.

11. The appellate court framed three points for determ