Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-1986, passed by the High Court whereby the second appeal of the respondent was allowed while the concurrent findings of the two courts below were set aside.

The short facts are that the father of Respondents 2 and 3 and husband of Respondent 1 filed a suit against the appellant for declaration that they being agnates of the deceased husband, inherited the property according to the custom of the Santhal Tribe where females are excluded from the right of succession. He further challenged the gift made by the widow of the deceased Lakhiram, namely, by Appellant 1 to Appellants 2 and 3. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that parties have become sufficiently Hinduised and as such the Hindu law of succession would apply and thus the widow will inherit the property of the deceased, consequently the gift made by her to Appellants 2 and 3 is also valid. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed. In second appeal the High Court remanded the case back to the first appellate court for recording the finding whether the parties were sufficiently Hinduised after setting aside the first appellate courts judgment.

After remand the first appellate court held that parties were sufficiently Hinduised and the Hindu law of succession would be applicable and confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court challenging the said finding contending that the courts below had committed error in recording the finding that the Hindu Succession Act will apply. However, the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent by holding that Hindu law as it stood prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 would apply, hence Appellant 1 inherited the property during her lifetime and on her death it would devolve to the agnates of her husband viz. contesting Respondent 1. Challenging the said finding, the submission on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court committed error in concluding that the parties would be governed by the law as prevailed prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956The question which arises in the present case is, whether the parties who admittedly belong to the Santhal Tribe are still continuing with their customary tradition or have they after being Hinduised changed their customs to that which is followed by the Hindus. It is in this context when the matter came first before the High Court, the High Court remanded the case for decision in this regard. After remand the first appellate court recorded the finding that most of the names of the families of the parties are Hindu names. Even PW 1 admits in the cross-examination that they perform the pindas at the time of death of any body. Females do not use vermilion on the forehead after the death of their husbands, widows do not wear ornaments. Even PW 2 admits that they perform shradh ceremonies for 10 days after the death and after marriage females used vermilion on their foreheads. The finding of the words is that they are following the customs of the Hindus and not the Santhal customs. In view of such a clear finding it is not possible to hold that sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act excludes the present parties from the application of the said Act. Sub-section (2) only excludes members of any Scheduled Tribe admittedly as per finding recorded in the present case though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribes they are Hinduised and they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that sub-section (2) will not apply to exclude the parties from application of the Hindu Succession Act. The High Court fell into error in recording a finding to the contrary. In view of this, the widow of Lakhiram would become the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act, consequently the gift given by her to Appellants 2 and 3 was a valid gift, hence the suit of Respondent 1 for setting aside the gift deed and inheritance stands dismissed.The appeal is allowed. The order dated 27-1-1986 passed by the High Court is set aside. No order as to costs.