M. Y. Eqbal, J.-This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.7.87 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Dumka in Title Appeal No. 4/83 affirming the judgment and decree passed by 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Dumka in Title Suit No. 34/78 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed.

2. At the time of admission of the appeal the following substantial question of law was formulated:-

"Whether the courts below have erred in law in placing the onus on the plaintiff to prove that there was no custom of adoption by females among the Santhals?"

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:-

The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforementioned suit for declaring that defendant no. 3, Rani Hansda, wife of Sundar Soren has no right to adoption and Balak Murmu is not the adopted son of Rani Hansda. The plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiff no. 1 is the agnate of Chandar Soren, husband of Rani Hansda. Other defendants are members of the same family being agnates and claiming inheritance in the property of Sundar Soren. Sundar Soren died leaving behind his widow Rani Hansda, who allegedly was maintained by the plaintiffs. During lif