This second appeal arises out of the judgement and decree of reversal rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu on July 11, 1995. This second appeal was admitted by Goel J. on July 15, 1997 with the observations: "Admit on substantial questions of law at Nos. 4, 5 and 8 mentioned at Page 10 of the Paper-book." Substantial questions of law at Page 10 reads: "4. Whether in the absence of specific plea as to which religion the plaintiff belong, findings in the matter of regulation of succession could not be recorded?

5. Whether in the matter of succession, the parties to the suit are governed by custom or by the provision of Hindu Succession Act. In case of custom, what are the particulars of the custom and whether the same is valid?

8. Whether the parties to the suit in the matter of succession are governed by the custom known as Rewaj-e-Zamindara, if so, the same has been specifically pleaded or proved"?

2. When the appeal was being heard, Id. counsel for the appellants wanted to raise the question of limitation and some other questions. An application for that purpose, was filed by the applicants saying that in addition to question Nos. 4, 5 and 8, questions No. 2, 6, 7 and 9 as set out in the memo of appeal were substantial questions of law. By my order dated September 27, 2005, I partly allowed the application holding that so far question Nos. 6, 7 and 9 were concerned, they overlap and pertain to appreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. However, in addition to the substantial questions of law on which the appeal had been admitted, the following substantial question of law was framed : "Whether the trial Court erred in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was within the period of limitation?" Necessary facts.

3. Surinder Chand, the respondent No. 1 in this appeal, filed a suit before the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Lahaul and Spiti Districts Keylong at Kullu in October, 1989 for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and his brothers pro forma defendant No. 4 Shamsher Singh inherited the suit property after the death of their father Shri Pratap Chand in equal shares and they are the owners in possession of this property and entitled to be recorded as such in the revenue record to the exclusion of their sisters Smt. Shakuntla, Smt. Damyanti and Smt. Manorma, defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and the entries in the revenue record showing to the contrary are wrong and not binding on the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no right, title or interest in the suit property and to cause any unlawful interference with the possession of the plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 4 Shamsher Singh. A consequential relief for injunction to restrain the defendants No. 1 to 3 from claiming any right, title or interest over the suit property and from causing any unlawful interference with the possession, enjoyment and ownership of the plaintiff in respect of suit land in any manner was also sought.

4. The case of the Plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint is: The parties to the suit are the sons and daughters of late Shri Partap Chand who originally belonged to District Lahaul and Spiti. The parties are "Bodh tribe" of District Lahaul and Spiti which is a scheduled tribe under the Constitution. Partap Chand himself was the Member of Punjab Scheduled Tribe Advisory Council and, therefore, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act or Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to them. Partap Chand died in February, 1964 leaving behind his widow Nima Devi, two sons, namely, Surinder Chand plaintiff and Shamsher Singh defendant No. 4 and three daughters Shakuntla, Damyanti and Manorma, the defendant in the suit. Smt. Shakuntla and Damyanti were married and were living with their respective husbands. The parties being "Bodh" are governed by tribal custom of District Lahaul and Spiti known as "Rewaj-e-Jamindara" in the matter of marriage, divorce, succession an