The instant appeal is preferred under Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 (Mizoram Act No. 11 of 2005) challenging the appellate judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Aizawl District, Aizawl, Mizoram in RFA No. 13 of 2008, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Court of Magistrate, Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in HC Case No. 464 of 2000. I have heard Mr. SS Dey, learned counsel assisted by Mr. M Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal may be summarized as under:-

The petitioner Mr. Lalchhuana (appellant herein) had filed an application before the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl praying for issuance of Heirship Certificate in his favour in respect of landed property covered under LSC No. 57/1969 originally belonging to his father late Sh. Nghaka. The said application was filed on 31.10.2000 and registered as HC Case No. 464/2000. It is the case of the petitioner (appellant herein), that his late father was duly settled with the plot of land where he had constructed house building which he occupied along with the family members of the appellant till his death on 15.3.1997. The death certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death is also annexed with the said petition. The petitioner stakes his claim on the ground that as per the time honoured Mizo Customary Law of inheritance, the petitioner being the youngest surviving son of his late father who had maintained him till his death except for the period when he was staying with Smti Lalzikpuii at Durtlang Hospital Compound for medical treatment the petitioner has every right to inherit the landed and other properties covered by LSC No. 57/1969. It is also pleaded that during his lifetime, late Nghaka had constantly told the petitioner that he being the youngest son shall have the right of inheritance. However, the filing of the application of heirship was necessitated on the production of a document by the opposite parties claiming the same to be the last Will and testament of late Sh. Nghaka by which the opposite parties along with their respective husbands started taking possession of the landed property without permission of the petitioner. The petitioner also being posted at Agartala at that point of time could not file appropriate petition for heirship immediately. Further pleaded case of the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 1 was staying in a part of the suit land and he may continue to live as such as long as he desires. As regards opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, it is stated that both of them are married daughters of late Sh. Nghaka who are staying separately with their respective husbands in their own houses. As regards opposite party No. 4, the petitioner states that as she is separated from her husband and does not have any issue and had not acquired any property, the petitioner considers it his duty to accommodate her in the house of the late father Sh. Nghaka.

3. The opposite parties (respondents herein) on receipt of notice appeared before the learned trial Court by filing their common written statement dated 3.09.2001. In the said written statement while disputing the facts stated in the petition it was specifically averred that as per Mizo customary Law youngest son can inherit the properties of the deceased father only where there is no valid will. In the case of late Sh. Nghaka, he having left a will, the properties of late Sh. Nghaka will have to be distributed as per the said will and accordingly, the petitioner does not have any right to inherit the properties left by late Sh. Nghaka by virtue of being his youngest son. At paragraph 16 of the said written statement specific pleading was made to the following