Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is as follows:-

”Whether the finding of the courts below that the first respondent belongs to a Scheduled Caste is a perverse finding in the face of the school records and the report of the Revenue Inspector/Deputy Tahsildar indicating to the contrary?”

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances which are narrated below, it would be necessary to reframe the substantial question of law especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994)6 SCC 241, namely,

“Whether a civil suit was maintainable in the light of the law as declared by the apex court in relation to Caste Certificates issued pursuant to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976?”

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents were heard on this substantial question of law that is reframed as above.

5. The facts of the case are as follows:-