x?\w mGH cmjRT OF CHHAT‘E’5SGARH m” B§LASPUR Secend Appeai Na.288 of 2W3 Appe§%ants ”L Fuikunwar, éaugmer cf Shri Bigan, P!aEntiffS aged about 35 years, caste-Gem, occupatian-Agr§cuiturist and muse work, resident of vinage Duppi, RSV Rajpur, Tah. Ambimpur, Distt.Surgu5‘a (Chhatzisgarh). 2“ m0 bai, daughmi' of Shri $3igan, aged about 3G years, casie~Gsn¢ occupatian —- Agicuémast ahd hcusework, r$s§dent af‘ vmaga Singhra, 9.5. and ,Tah. Pt’aiaypun Déstt.Surgu}a (Chhattisgarh). VSf'Sgs a- Respondems Atwaro, daughier of Shr§ Nankaram, Befendants aged about 60 years, occupatiom Hauaewsrk and agricuétwist, resédan': of viilage Duppi, RS. Ragpuy, D§stt.$urgu}a '{Chhattisgarh} State of Chhattisgarh, hraugh: Dismct Colkac’tor Sur§u§a (Chhattisgarh) {Seccnd Appeai under $ection mi} of ihe CFC) b9 ?:esent:— MtDNPrajapatL csunse€ m the appeitanta. Mr‘R‘KJha, Dy‘GGvtAéx/ocate far respcndent NG.2i53ta€&. {53: Han’bie Mr. TP. Shatmag .i; ORfiL J' m€§W§E§€f (2&10-2ma) “a. By th§s seccad appeai fiied under Sectkm mi} o? ihe Code sf CM? ?maedure, i908 (for short ‘CPC’), the aapeiiants have chaiienged the {egaiiw and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 13.1 .2903 pasaed by the 6‘“ Additimai Disrrict Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, in Civil Apeea! No.58A/2G02, affirming the gudgment and decree of diemissa? f civér suit dated 29.89? passed by the 3m Civii Judge C!ess~ii, Ambikapur, in Civit Suit No.129A/97 whereby iearrred 3r“ Civii Judge Grass-ii has ’dismiesed the suit tited on behaif of the appettante for dectaretian, and permanent ingunctten against respondent Ne}? en the grount;' that the eppettante ere r net exc‘rusive 0r sate owner at the prcperty in exciusicn of feependent NM s ~2— and resrmndent N931 is aisc having half share ova ihe grapedy as {iaughter ef Nankaram. As p6! pieadingg of the pames, Nankaram was having his $e§?-acqui:ed h) pmpeml admeasug'ing $.5§ acres 3f ihe iand s§iuated a€ wage $upg>i, Paiiae $tation Rajpur, cii$trict Ambikapur, he was having one son 8igan ie‘ fai‘ner cf the aepeimnts and one daughter Le. respondent Nari. :‘xaankafam died ieaving one son and one daughier Le Eigan, father of the apheilanis and reepondent i oi. The appeiiants anci reapendem+ NM t aye members of the Scheduied Tribe and not governed by Hindu i i; but governeo Toy. their own custom. As per own custom, in case of eon and daughter, daughter is not entiiied for succession over the properiy ieii by her father“ After cieaih of father oi the appeiiants, names of the appeiiente and respondent No.1 were mutated in the revenue records. Qn the aforesaid ground, suit for deoieration and permanent injunction was hiad by the appeiiants. By tiiing repiy, respondent No.1 has speoiiioaiiy eiieged that ee ’a daughter of Naniiararn, she is entitied for haii of the share over the property ier’t by her father. Father of the appeiianis died during iiietirne of Nankararn, therefore, present appeiiants are not entitied for entire property. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, teamed 3’“ Civii Judge iase-ii, Ambikaeur has arrived at a finding that father of the appeiiante died during iir'etirne of i‘tankerem and at the time of death of Nankaram, hie daughter respondent No.1 end grand-daughters appeiiants were present, therefore: respondent Not is entitiea’ for half of the share over the property ieft by i ankararn. Same was oheitenged before the iower appeiiate Court and tower appeiiate Court has affirmed the judgment and oeoree by tuo’gment and decree impugned. . i have heard learned counsei tor the parties, perused the judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the triai Court and records of the Courts beiow. . Learned oounsei for the appeiiants submits that 'ooth the parties are members of the Soheduied Tribe and not governed by Hin u .aw, l they h are governed by their own custom. in case of son and daughter, daughter is not entitied for succession in Gond custom, Ha mereiore, $ respondent No.1 is not entitied for any succession, but the Courts beiow have committed iiiegaiity and dismissed the suit as weii as appeai. 4N ‘3 k u. 0n the other hand, :earned counse£ for respcndent N32 cpposes the appsaL 5. in the present case, bath the parties have Eed evédence. As per evidence af the part§es, father sf ihe appeiiants Le. Bigan died duféng §ifet§me of man M ’ara. . and pmperty is seif-acquired praperty 0f Nankaram; iherefore, at the time 0f deaih af Nankaram, on.y big ans daughter and iwa gramudaughters Le. respcneent NM and Ehe appeilanm wefe eiive aad sen ef Nenkeram was no: aiive. in these circumsmnces, cueiem cie§med by the appeaiame was net eppncabie te ihe parnes and acjméi‘iedi", responéen: NM was beiter ciaimant even agamst the apeeimme fer succession e§ the ereperty ieft by her father, bui seemed ‘zower appeiia’ée Ceurt has heid that ine appe’iiente and respendem Ne? are enntie fer equei share Le. ihe appenante are enrr‘rred for helf ef ihe ehere and reependent Nari is eniiried fer 'nerf er“ rhe share ever rhe prepeny refr‘ by Nankeram. ?. 0n cieee ecrutiny ef the evidence and pieadinge, do net frnd an“y substantiai queerien ef iew 3n this appear, Ceneequen‘riy, the appear ie riebie te be drsmiesed and if is hereby diemiseeri at the merien siege iteeii. Ne order as ta cosie. Sdl- T. P. Shanna Judge