A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. This appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby the dismissal of the suit has been set aside and decree for possession and perpetual injunction has been passed against the appellants. The facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff and the appellants-defendants are close relatives. They claim to belong to Kolam community of Scheduled Tribes. According to the plaintiff, one Bhutu Atram was the owner of field Gut No. 5, admeasuring 6 Hectare 44R land situated at village Rahati, Tq. Ghatanji Dist. Yavatmal. Said Bhutu had no male issue. Hence he had adopted one Jairam Kashiram Atram as his son by executing a registered deed of adoption on 25-3-1968. The name of said Jairam was changed to Dattatray. Said Dattatray died on 17-8-1994 and the plaintiff is his only son. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were the daughters of deceased Bhutu. According to the plaintiff, as per the customs prevailing in Kolam community and as per their own law of succession, the son alone is entitled to inherit the property of his father. Hence, according to the plaintiff, he being the adopted son of Bhutu he had acquired title to the suit fields by succession. According to the plaintiff, in the year 1989, the defendants along with one Chandrabhaga had filed Civil Suit No. 131 of 1989 against the plaintiff's father for possession of suit field. In the said suit, the plaintiff's father had claimed right of inheritance and said suit came to be dismissed on 5-3-1991. However, during pendency of said suit, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had taken forcible possession of a portion of the suit field and hence, aforesaid suit was filed claiming relief of possession in respect of said portion of the suit field. A decree for perpetual injunction in respect of remaining portion of land was also filed.

2. The defendants filed their written statement and stated that they were related with the plaintiff and they all were belonging to Kolam community. It was submitted that Bhutu had one son named Bhavanya who had expired prior to Bhutu. According to them, after the death of Bhutu, as per the law applicable to Kolam community, his widow, the defendants and the daughter of Bhavanya were the legal heirs and they had equal share in the suit property. It was denied that as per the custom prevailing in Kolam community, the son alone would become the legal heir for inheriting the property. It was also stated that the plaintiff was not a blood relative of Bhutu and hence, he had no right to succeed to the suit property. In the specific pleadings, a plea was taken that only the blood relatives of the deceased were entitled to claim rights as legal heirs. On these grounds aforesaid suit came to be opposed.

3. The plaintiff examined his grandfather Kashiram as his witness, while the defendants examined Laxmi who was the defendant No. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the owner of the suit property. The trial Court found that as the parties to the suit belonged to Kolam community, they were not governed by provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short the said Act). The trial Court thereafter observed that there was no evidence on record with regard to the custom prevailing in Kolam community as regards inheritance. It also observed that the pleadings of the earlier suit had not been filed on record and hence, the plaintiff could not take any benefit of said adjudication. As it found that the plaintiff as well as the defendants were the legal heirs of the deceased Bhutu, it dismissed the suit by judgment dated 30-1-1999.

4. The plaintiff being aggrieved by aforesaid dismissal of the suit preferred appeal under section 96 of the Code. The first Appellate Court proceeded to hold that old Hindu Law was applicable to the members of Kolam community in the matter of inheritance and succession.