Vikramaditya Prasad, J.

1. The substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal preferred by defendant-appellant- appellants is :--Whether in view of the fact that the deed of adoption was executed in the year 1950, a suit filed in the year 1981 was barred under the law of limitation. No liberty had been granted to raise another substantial questions of law but it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in fact the questions to be answered are whether Section 2 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act bars adoption by Schedule Tribes and whether the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to the plaintiff who is a Munda (a schedule tribe)?

2. The question aforesaid arose out of the following short facts:--

The plaintiff Paku Mundan (who was subsequently substituted by Khaintu Munda) was the daughter of Ghuran Munda. The pleading is that the plaintiff as also her ancestors were sufficiently Hinduised and they were governed by Hindu Mitkashara Law in the matters of succession and inheritance. The father of the plaintiff held and possessed lands under Khata Nos. 20 and 101 of Village Turidih. P.S. Raidih of R.S. as his raiyati lands fully de