The customary exclusion of married daughters from inheritance lacks legal basis unless validly proven, hence their entitlement to inherit remains enforceable.

1. This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellants herein / plaintiffs was admitted for hearing by formulating the following three substantial questions of law on 3-1-2014: -
'1. Whether the two Courts below have committed an error of law in holding that Jhuli, the plaintiff No.1 is not Ghaijiha Daughter of Chilbio?
2. Whether the two Courts below were justified in holding that there was no custom in the caste of the plaintiff of married daughter inheriting property of the deceased father?
3. Whether the two Courts below were justified in not appreciating the fact that as per the evidence D/1 and D/3, the partition between the four sons of Pandu had taken place?'
[For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.]

2. The suit property situated at Village Kaliya, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur shown in Schedule A of the plaint was originally held by Pandu. Pandu had four sons namely, Padra, Lallu, Chotto and Chilbilo. The original plaintiffs are daughters of Chilbilo. Chilbilo had no son, whereas the defendants are sons of Padra, Lallu and Chotto. Chilbilo died in the year 1989 and the plaintiffs are his legal heirs being daughters as he was not having son. Jhuli was daughter of Chilbilo. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Jhuli was kept as Gharjiya daughter and her husband was kept as Ghar Daamaad by her father Chilbilo. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after death of their father Chilbilo, the suit property has been recorded in their name, but the defendants who are their father's brother's sons in connivance with the revenue officer got their names recorded in the revenue record and forcefully taken possession of the suit property, as such, they are entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and it was pleaded that the property was held by forefathers of the plaintiffs and the defendants - Pandu and parties belong to Uraon Caste and they are governed by their own custom and according to their custom, married daughters do not get right and title in the property of father and property has never been partitioned between the four brothers and thus, the plaintiffs being married daughters, do not get any right in the suit property.

4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the suit property was the property acquired by Pandu - grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants and they belong to aboriginal tribe and in Uraon caste, married daughters do not get share in the property of their father and it has not been proved that Jhuli was the gharjamai daughter of Chilbilo, therefore dismissed the suit and in turn it has been affirmed by the first appellate Court in appeal against which this second appeal has been preferred in which substantial questions of law have been formulated which have been set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. Rishi Mahobia, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein/plaintiffs, would submit that both the Courts below have legally erred in holding that married daughters do not get share in the property of their father in Uraon caste, but valid custom continuing for lifetime and valid continuance of the said legal custom prevalent among them has not been proved satisfactorily. Merely on the basis of alleged admission made by Inderlal (PW-1), the suit has been dismissed which is wholly unsustainable. Vali