S.P. Khare, J.

This is defendant's second appeal u/s 100, Civil Procedure Code. The following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of the admission of this appeal by order dated 21-1- 1999:--

"Whether the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that the respondent No. 1 Mangaribai as per caste custom applicable to the parties was entitled to inherit the suit property is legally sustainable"?

Plaintiff Mangaribai is daughter of Marchai. He had no male issue. He was son of Budhawa. Jhadi was brother of Marchai. The defendants are sons of Jhadi. The parties belong to Oraon tribe which is a "scheduled tribe". Budhawa has left behind 11.46 acres of land as per schedule-A annexed to the plaint in village Basantala Tahsil Kunkuri district Raigarh. The plaintiff, daughter of Marchai is claiming half share in these lands. The case of the defendants is that in Oraon tribe the daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father. The inheritance amongst Oraon community is governed by their customary law.

The trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to inherit the share of her father as per caste custom. Reliance has been placed on a book written by S.C. Rai "The Oraon of Chhota Nagpur". It has been held that a daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father. The First Appellate Court has reversed this finding and has held that the plaintiffs husband Phoolchand was kept as "Ghar Jamai" after her marriage with him by Budhawa and, therefore, she is entitled to inherit the share of her father in the lands in dispute. That has been held to be a recognized caste custom.

It is true that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 do not apply to the members of the Scheduled Tribe as per section 2(2) of this Act. It is also true that the parties to this suit belong to Oraon tribe which is a scheduled tribe. The real question is whether according to the caste custom the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the share of her father in the lands in dispute. She has no brother. It was a peculiar feature of old Hindu Law based on the interpretation of the Vedas and Smritis that a daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father if he has left behind a son. In the absence of son the daughter was entitled to inheritance and she used to get "limited Estate" and on her death it used to pass on to the reversioners of her father. That rule of Hindu Law has been abrogated by section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which confers full heritable capacity on a female heir. In the present case there is no definite evidence that amongst the Oraons a daughter is excluded from inheriting the property of her father in all the circumstances. The evidence adduced by the defendants has been perused by this Court. The witnesses have stated that the daughters have no right of inheritance in their community but they have not cited a single instance in which a daughter has been excluded from inheriting the property of her father even in the absence of his male issue. Plaintiff Mangari Bai (PW-1) has deposed that in village Basantala Nishia has inherited the property of her father and similarly another lady has inherited the property of her father in village Jiling. Defendant Chuiyya Ram (DW-1) has deposed that a daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father even in the absence of her brother. In cross-examination he has stated that he is "Hindu Oraon" and he is observing the customs of Hindu Oraon and there is a custom of bringing Ghar Jamai in his caste. Biroram (DW-2), Atawaram (DW-3) and Subedarram (DW-4) have deposed in examination-in-chief that a daughter has no right of inheritance in their community but they have also admitted that there is system of bringing Ghar Jamai if the father has no son. In the present case the plaintiffs husband was brought as Ghar Jamai. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the share of h