Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. The dispute in this case relates to the property of two brothers, Dewan and Ranjit. Ranjit died, leaving a widow, Musammat Ganeshi, who died some time in April 1920. Dewan died about six or' seven months prior to the suit. The plaintiff' claims to be the son of Multan Singh, a brother of Dewan and Ranjit. The defendants claim to be the descendants of Bhai Singh, another brother of Dewan and Ranjit. The parties are Taga Brahmins. The family to which the plaintiff claims to belong used to reside in the village Jaranda. The allegation of the plaintiff was that his father, Multan Singh, had gone to live in the village Rohana and that in his absence Ranjit, Dewan and Bhai Singh got the family property entered in their names, and that after the death of Multan Singh when the plaintiff claimed his share in the family property or inheritance from his father, the defendants satisfied his claim by giving him a money compensation. His complaint was that on the death of Musammat Ganeshi, the widow of Ranjit, and. that of Dewan, the defendants got the entire property belonging to the share of Ranjit and Dewan entered in their names to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The present suit was filed by him for the recovery of a half share of the property left by Ranjit and Dewan with mesne profits.
2. The defence was that Laiq Ram and his sons were Taga Brahmins of the Bisa class, that Multan Singh was not the son of Laiq Ram or brother of Bhai Singh, Dewan and Ranjit, that Multan Singh belonged to the Dasa class of Taga Brahmins and was married in that community and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any share in the property of Ranjit or Dewan deceased.
3. The Court below found that Multan Singh was one of the sons of Laiq Ram, that the plaintiff was the son of Multan Singh by a Dasa woman, whom Multan Singh had married, and that as no valid marriage could be effected between a Dasa and a Bisa the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit any share in the estate of his uncles.
4. We have examined the evidence adduced in the case and agree with the Court below in finding that the plaintiff is the son of Multan Singh by a Dasa woman of Qutubpur, whom Multan Singh had married, and that Multan Singh was one of the sons of Laiq Ram who was a Taga Brahmin of the Bisa class.
5. The Taga Brahmins form an important cultivating and land-owning tribe confined almost altogether to the Upper Duab country and Rohilkhand. The Tagas claim to be of Brahmanical origin and are divided into two sub-divisions, known as Bisas and Dasas or the 'twenties' and the' tens,' and one of the important differences between the customs they observe is that while the Dasas allow widow marriage, the Bisas prohibit it. According to Crooke, if a Bisa allows this objectionable practice, he falls at once into the Dasa grade.
6. The Bisa and Dasa form two endogamous groups, and within these groups they follow the usual rules of Brahmanical exogamy, (Crooke's Tribes and Castes, Vol. IV, 354). The Bisas consider themselves to be purer and higher in grade. The Dasas are considered to be men of lower grade and possibly of mixed blood. According to the evidence, Bisa Tagas do not smoke or interdine with the Dasa Tagas.
7. The defendant Tara Chand states that there can be no marriage relations between them and this is probably true, though none of the witnesses produced by the defendants or those produced by plaintiff were asked any question about it.
8. There is nothing, however, to show that such a marriage would be illegal. If a man who belongs to the Bisa grade marries a woman belonging to the Dasa class the marriage may be considered reprehensible but would not be illegal. The only effect of such a marriage would be that the former and his children would no longer be treated as members of the Bisa community, or, in other words, they would be degraded and reduced to the position of Dasas among whom they would have in future to intermarry.
9. The evidence adduced shows that Multan Singh was married to the daughter of Kanhaiya, resident of Qutubpur. The plaintiff states that he was married to the sister of Chhajju of Qutubpur and that Chhajju was a Bisa Taga, but no person belonging to the family of Chhajju or residing at Qutubpur has been produced. On the other hand two witnesses who belong to Qutubpur have given evidence on behalf of the defendants and sworn that Multan Singh was married with the daughter of Kanhaiya, who belonged to the Dasa community. The evidence of Baldeo Singh goes to show that the plaintiff himself is married to the daughter of Ram Prasad who similarly belongs to the Dasa community. The Court below assumes that a marriage between a Dasa and Bisa would be illegal, because the two could not smoke or dine together or intermarry, but there is nothing to show that there is any custom making such a marriage illegal or involve the forfeiture of all rights of inheritance.
10. A man may marry a woman of a lower class or grade within his caste and may in a case like the present, by such a marriage fall into the class or grade to which his wife belongs, but in the absence to show that such a marriage would not be recognised as valid by the custom of the community to which either the husband or the wife belongs neither he nor his issue can lose their right of inheritance in the family property. No such evidence has been adduced in this case. Both the Dasas and the Bisas really are members of the same caste and community. The former simply belong to a lower grade and are looked down upon by the latter and a marriage between persons belonging to these two different social orders cannot be regarded as illegal. The claim of the plaintiff ought therefore to succeed. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the claim decreed with mesne profits from Kharif 1328 Fasli till the recovery of possession which will be determined by the Court below under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff will get his costs here and hitherto from the defendants-respondents who will bear their own costs throughout. The costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.
11. The counsel for. the appellant will make good the deficiency of Rs. 36-6-6 due on account of translation and printing before the decree is prepared.