1. Heard on admission. Perused the records.

2. This second appeal at the instance of plaintiff directed against the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Mandla rejecting the application for condonation of delay of eleven months in filing an appeal against Judgment and Decree date 29.4.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.45-A/2009; consequently, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree by the trial Court.

3. The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit land of Khasra Nos.76, 281, 272, 316, 285 and 303 area 1.420, 0.259, 0.410, 0.090, 4.480 and 2.890 total area 9.290 hectare in village Bodasilli tahsil and District Mandla M.P. and for declaring the sale deed executed by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of respondents No.3, 4 and 5 as null and void. The suit was filed on the ground that the suit land belonged to appellant's grand father's brother who had no sons and adopted the appellant under custom of "Balpos" allegedly prevalent among aboriginal Gonds. The suit land was, however, mutated in the name of Samoti Bai daughter of appellants' grand fathers' brother, Chamra, who vide registered gift deed (Bakshishnama) dated 11.12.1968 gifted in the name of the appellant and his brothers respondents No. 6 and 7 (defendants No.6 and 7). That respondent/defendant No.1 Bramhabai, wife of the appellant, grand daughter of Chamra, got her name mutated over the suit land and transferred the suit land of Khasra No. 78 area 0.40 hectares to respondent, defendant No.3 by registered sale deed dated 25.8.2007, Khasra No.285 area 1.10 hectares to respondent/defendant No.4 by registered sale deed dated 24.8.2007 and Khasra No.285 area 1.10 hectare to respondent/defendant No.5 by sale deed dated 24.8.2007.

4. The defendants remained ex-parte. The trial Court dismissed the suit on merit vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2011, answering six issues against the appellant/plaintiff.

5. The issues were :

(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing Khasra Nos. 76, 281, 272, 316, 285 and 303 area 1.420, 0.259, 0.410, 0.090, 4.480 and 2.890 total area 9.290 hectare in village Bodasilli tahsil and District Mandla M.P.

(ii) Whether the execution of sale deed by respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the respondents/defendants No.3, 4 and 5 is liable to be declared as null and void.

(iii) Whether respondents/defendants No.1 to 8 are unauthorisedly interfering with the suit land.

(iv) Whether respondents/defendants No.3, 4 and 5 are valid holders of suit land transferred in their favour by the respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 and whether respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 are the owners of remaining suit land.

(v) Whether respondents/defendants No.1, 3, 4 and 5 are entitled for perpetual injunction against the plaintiff.

(vi) Relief and costs.

6. To arrive at a conclusion in respect of the issues No.1, 2 and 3, trial Court found that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the custom of 'Balpos' and has also failed to establish that Samoti Bai daughter of Chamra and Bramha Bai (respondent/defendant No.1) grand daughter had no right to inheritance. The trial Court also returned a finding that even Bakshishnama has not been proved, nor that the plaintiff has been in adverse possession of suit property. That issues No.4 and 5 were not found proved as the respondents/defendants No.1 to 5 remained ex-parte.

7. Being aggrieved the appellant/plaintiff filed appeal after Eleven months. Along with the application under section 5 Limitation Act, 1963. Seeking condonation of delay on the ground that being a rustic villager the appellant was not aware of the judgment dated 29.4.2011 and that it was only on 28.3.2012 when he met his counsel came to know about the dismissal of suit. The application was opposed by the respondent/defendant No.1 stating that the appellant was well aware of t