Sanjay K Agrawal, J.

The following two substantial questions of law were framed for determination at the time of admission of this appeal as under: -

"1. Whether the finding of both the Courts below in respect of making the Hindu Succession Act applicable upon the parties to the suit was proper or not?

2. Whether the daughters of deceased Mardan have inherited and perfected the right over the property of their father on account of the fact that he had died prior to 1955?"

(Parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. The following genealogical tree would demonstrate the relationship among the parties: -

Chuchrung (Dead)
Mardan (Dead)							Puniram
Jagmati (Dead)			Tilobai (Dead)			Naanhibai (D-7)
			Daduram (D-1)	Padumlal (D-2)	Laxminarayan (D-3)		Anandram (P-1)	Baratlal (P-2)	Shyamlal (P-3)
Ghasiya (Dead)	Kanhaiya (D-5)	Tularam (D-6)
Amrit (D-4)

3. The suit property mentioned in Schedule A measuring 13.95 acres situate at Village Darri, Tahsil Dabhra, District Bilaspur (presently District Janjgir-Champa) was originally held by Chuchrung in his exclusive ownership. After death of Chuchrung, his two sons Mardan and Puniram inherited the said property. Mardan and his wife died of cholera in the year 1951 leaving behind three daughters Jagmati, Tilobai and Nanhibai, who is defendant No.7. Defendants No.1 to 3 are sons of Tilobai, whereas defendant No.4 is grand-son of Jagmati being her son's son and defendants No.5 & 6 are sons of Jagmati. Puniram died in the year 1960 leaving behind his three sons who are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being heirs of Puniram brought an action for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants on 31-8-1995 pleading inter alia that the parties are Sawara by caste which is notified Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and they faith and follow the principles of Hindu law and thus, they became Hindus. The defendants being the daughter/daughters' sons of Mardan have no right of inheritance because, Mardan died in the year 1951 before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') on 17-6-1956, therefore, the share of Mardan had reversed to his brother Puniram because, prior to 1956, female heirs had no right of succession and the defendants have no right to inherit the property of their father Mardan which the defendants denied stating that they are governed by their own custom while admitting that the suit property was held by Chuchrung and inherited by Mardan and Puniram jointly.

4. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court held that the parties though are aboriginal tribe, but they follow the principles of Hindu law and since Mardan and his wife both died in 1950-51 prior to coming into force of the Act of 1956, therefore, Mardan's daughters had not acquired any title or cannot inherit the share of Mardan and as such, his brother Puniram had inherited the property and the plaintiffs are in possession, and decreed the suit in toto in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. The first appellate Court agreed with the reasonings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants leading to filing of second appeal in which substantial questions of law have been framed which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

6. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in holding that the parties have become Hindus and they