A custom is valid and binding only if it is ancient, invariable, certain, reasonable, and not opposed to law or public policy. A suit for a mere declaration of title is not barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if mere declaration would be sufficient and would serve the purpose.

This second appeal arises from the decree of the District Judge, Manipur passed in CA No. 31 of 1972 affirming the decree and judg­ment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Manipur in OS Np.53/71/46/72.

2. Facts,-The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in brief, was as follows. On his father's death, the plaintiff succeeded to the Chiefship of the Village Mokokching. He was a minor when his father died and, therefore, the defendant-respondent being his uncle has looking after the village as acting Chief. But the defendant taking advantage of the minority of the plaintiff surreptitiously without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff recorded his name in the Government record (Tou/i Book) as the Chief of the Village Mokokching. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he is the Chief of Mokokching Village.

The case of the defendant was thus. The father of the plaintiff was the Chief and the plaintiff inherited the Chiefship on the death of his father. When the plaintiff's father died the plaintiff was aged 10 and, therefore, he took over the management of the village as de facto Chief of the village. After the plaintiff became major, he abandoned the Chiefship of the village on his own accord in favour of the defendant in the year 1962 and filed a joint application (Ext B/l) praying for transfer of the Chiefship in favour of the defendant. The transfer of the Chiefship was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur on 4.7.64. The defendant also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and was hit by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had abandoned the Chiefship of the village in favour of the defendant. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff-appellant had surrendered the Chiefship to the defendant-respondent. The finding of the lower appellant Court runs :

"It is true that the appellant was Chief and he was entitled to remain the Chief after the death of his father. But according to the custom of his tribe the Chiefship could be surrendered. In the present case, the appellant by his own act surrendered the Chiefship."

4. Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the finding of the learned District Judge to the effect that according to the custom of the plaintiff's tribe (Kom Tribe) the Chiefship could be surren­dered shall not be binding on the parties as the custom has not been pleaded nor issue has been framed. Mr. Imo Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the proposition of law submitted by Mr. Nilamani Singh shall not be applicable to the facts of this case.

5. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it will be pertinent to state that, in the present case, admittedly the plea with regard to the alleged custom was not in the written statement of the defendant. No issue was framed by the trial Judge relating to the custom. It is also not dis­puted that Chiefship of the village is an office and that the Chief has to perform certain functions under the relevant laws.

6. It is well settled that the general rule is that an issue not arising on the pleadings of the parties should not be determined, that is to say, - in the absence of the pleadings, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. But the rule has no application to a case where the parties go to trial fully understanding the central facts with knowledge that a particular question is in issue and adduced evidence thereon, although no specific plea­ding has been raised and no issue has been framed, as it would be a mere irregularity which does not vitiate the decision. If any authority is required we may refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nagubai vs. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593; Bhagawati Prasad vs. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735; and Ram Sarup vs. Bishnu Narain, AIR 1987 SC 1242.

7. The next question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether, on the facts and