The court ruled that custom needs to be proven for inheritance claims among tribal groups, and failure to establish such custom results in decisions governed by statutory law.

For the respoondent: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, C Advocate. Satye n Vaidya, Judge (oral):

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, Hthe Code) against the judgment and decree dated

23.9.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharmshala in Civil Appeal No. 2-J/2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Jawali, District Kangra, in Civil Suit No. 07/2003, has been affirmed.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed by both the Courts. P 3. The appellant and respondents No. 1 to 8 are the sons and daughters of deceased Jagar Nath. After the death of Jagar Nath on 28.10.1995, mutation of inheritance of his estate was attested vide Mutation No. 30 dated 25.10.1997 in favour of legal heirs of Jagar Nath i.e. plaintiff, defendants No. 1 to 8 and wife of Jagar Nath, who later died.

4. The land described in para-1 of the plaint (for short the suit land) was also stated to be part of the estate ohf Jagar Nath.

g5. Respondents No. 1 to 8 sold their shares in the isuit land in favour of respondents No. 9 and 10 by way of Sale Deed dated 16.8.2002.

6. Appellant/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondents, seeking declaration to the effect that Mutation No. 30 dated 25.10.1997 and Sale Deed dated 16.8.2002 were wrong and illegal. The plaintiff had alleged that the defendants No. 2 to 10 had no lawful title in the suit land. Plaintiff had based his claim on the premise that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 8 belonged to Schedule Tribe named Gaddi. They were Pthe original inhabitants of Tehsil Bharmour of District Chamba. As per plaintiff, by virtue of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 8 being members of Schedule Tribe, Hindu Succession Act was not applicable and rather the inheritance was to be governed by the custom prevalent in the tribe. It was alleged that as per custom in Gaddi Tribe in Chamba District, only the male heirs were entitled to inherit the estate of a male and the wife of the deceased would only inherit a right till her life time. As regards the female hheirs, it was stated that the custom prohibited inheritance gin their favour.

i7. The suit was contested by the defendants. The averments with respect to existence of any custom, as alleged by the plaintiff, were denied. It was submitted that the parties were governed under the Hindu Succession Act and in absence of any custom to the contrary, the provisions of the Act would apply and as such, after the death of Jagar Nath, his estate had been rightly inherited by all his heirs including female heirs.

8. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether the parties being scheduled tribes Gaddis of Bharmour are governed by tribal custom in matter of succession, as alleged? OPP.

ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether mutation No. 30 qua the estate of Jagar nath is null & void, as alleged? OPP.

ii-A) Whether the plaintiff is the co-owner to the extent of half share in the osuit land? OPP iii) Whether cus toms of Bharmour area is not applicable tto the parties, as alleged? OPD.

iv) Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable, as allueged? OPD v) oWhether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD vi) Relief.

8. Issues No.1, 2 and 2-A were answered in negative and rest of the issues were answered in affirmative and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court by holding inter-alia that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of any custom as alleged by him for excluding the female heirs from inheritance of a male member of Gaddi Tribe of Chamba District.

9. Plaintiff unsuccessfully filed first appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The learned First Appellate Court vide impugned