Customary law governs inheritance rights, emphasizing the necessity of proving adoption and community customs for legal validation.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC), Pendra Road in Civil Appeal No.123-A/02, which, in turn, arise out of the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2001 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.28-A/2000. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants, declaring their sole title over the suit property, holding that they alone, being the daughters of late Ramsingh, are entitled to inherit the same and the respondent/defendant has no legal right of inheritance in respect of the said property. The trial Court also held that the respondent/defendant has failed to prove a valid adoption in his favour by late Ramsingh. However, by the impugned judgment, while allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court recorded a finding that the respondent/defendant had proved the adoption and accordingly, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

3. This Second Appeal was admitted for hearing on 4.9.2006 by formulating the following substantial questions of law :

(A) Whether, the lower appellate court erred in reversing the findings of learned trial court that the defendant has no legal right of inheritance in the property of Late Ramsingh along with his daughters?

(B) Whether, the lower appellate court was justified in holding that the defendant Sakharam is legally adopted son of Late Ramsingh Gond when the custom of adoption was neither pleaded nor proved by Sakharam in accordance with law which could have conferred legal right upon him for inheritance?

4. Necessary facts of the case are that admittedly, both the parties belong to ‘Gond’ Tribal Community. Mangli Bai and late Sukhwariya Bai are both daughters of late Ramsingh. As there was no male issue in the family, the plaintiffs’ father late Ramsingh performed Chudi Marriage with the respondent’s mother namely Phoolkunwar, D/o Mohan Singh Gond R/o Village Nagoi and brought her to Village Umarkhohi around the year 1957. After approximately 12 years of the Chudi Marriage, Ramsingh died around the year 1969 and Phoolkunwar died around the year 1984. From her earlier marriage with Farsu, Phoolkunwar had three children namely respondent/defendant Sakharam and his two sisters namely Shyamkunwar and Ramkunwar. Phoolkunwar brought all three children with her. It is also not in dispute that the suit property is an ancestral property of late Ramsingh, situated at Village Umarkhohi, Tehsil Pendra Road. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title as the sole legal heirs of their father late Ramsingh and a further declaration that the defendant has no legal right or interest in the suit property and he illegally got his name entered in the revenue records.

5. The defendant/respondent in his written statement stated that his mother-Phoolkunwar performed a Chudi Marriage with late Ramsingh on the condition that he would adopt the defendant and the defendant was thereafter adopted by late Ramsingh. Phoolkunwar, mother of the defendant, had also put a condition for the marriage that late Ramsingh should maintain both of the defendant’s sisters namely Shyamkunwar and Ramkunwar and arrange their marriages as if they were his own daughters. Late Ramsingh complied with the said condition and before the Village Panch, adopted the respondent/defendan