7 ft^ l:^. l HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH: BILASPUR ^ Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J- Appellant S.A.No.99of2007 Mohan Singh, aged 63 years, son of Shri Jai Singh, caste Gond (Scheduled Tribe)^ resident of Village Pondi, Tehsil Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. Chaiti Bai, aged 46 years, vi/ife of Shri Milan Singh,Caste Gond, resident of Village Pondi, Tehsil Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2. Leela Bai, aged 43 years, daughter of iate Shri Bitani, Gond, 3. Urmiia Bai, aged 32 years, daughter of late Shri Bitani Gond, Both residents of Village Patharra, Tehsii Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (Defendants/Respondents) 4. State of Chhatttegarh, through the District Collector, Bilaspur (CG) Second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908 Present: ShriSomnath Verma, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07.01.2009) Heard on admissson. (2) The appetiant/plaintiff is aggneved by the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2007 passed in civil.appeal No.21-A/2006 by the Additional District Jud.ge, Pendra Road affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1999 passed in civil suit No.7-A/1998 by the Civil Judge, Glass-11, Pendra Road, whereby the suit was dt'smissed. (3) The suit of the appellanVplaintiff was founded on the pleading of custom that in Gond community, after the death of father, the daughter does not succeed to the property left by the father. Both the Courts beiow have, on proper appreciationofevidence, heldthatthe plaintiff hasfailedto prove the essentia! ingredients ofthe custom i.e. such custom having beenprevalent in the community since time immemorial or that such custom is not opposed to the pubtic policy. (4) I have peYused the record and also the testimonyof Mohan Singh RA/-1, Heera Lal PW-2 and Umenda Singh PW-3. None of the witnesses had stated that such a custom is prevalent since time immemorial in their community. On the other hand, the evidence led by the respondents is in rebuttat ofthe evidence led by the piaintiff. (5) Having perused the record and after considenng the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, 1 am ofthe considered opinion that both the Courts beiow have, on proper appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding offact that the appellant/plaintiffhad failed to establish the custom as pleaded by him. Both the Courts below were thus right in deciining to grant relief to the appellant/plaintiff. (6) No substantial question of law arises for determination ofthis appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- ^p-^r ,tiinukh Priya • V.