- (1.)Substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this Second Appeal which is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.7.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 11 A/1997 whereby, the first appellate Court has affirmed, the dismissal of Civil Suit No.96A/1994, are:
1. Whether in view of the fact that it was not disputed that Ramdeen married Shallobai in Churi Form, the Court below was right in dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground that custom of succession has not been proved ?

2. Whether in absence of proof of a custom the appellant shall be entitled to a share in the suit property by virtue of will dated 10.1.1984 executed by Shallobai or otherwise on the basis that she will be entitled to succeed to the half of the property of Ramdeen as his second wife under section 6 of the C.P Laws Act ?

(2.)Appellant /plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land situated at Bhilania bearing Survey Nos. 17,80, 138,157,160 and 162 admeasuring 1.34 hectares on the plea that he and the defendant are Gond by caste and are related as brother and sister, and are governed by customs prevalent in Gond Tribe and the provisions of Hindu Law are not applicable to their tribe. That the suit property was owned by Ramdeen Gond. The defendant is the daughter of Ramdeen from her first wife. That after the death of her first wife, Ramdeen had married Shallobai. The plaintiff who is son of Shallobai was 5-8 years at the time of her marriage with Ramdeen and Ramdeeen had adopted the plaintiff. That Ramdeen expired in the year 1983 and Shallobai in the year 1988. That after the death of Ramdeen, Shallobai and the defendant (daughter of Ramdeen) were the joint owner of the suit property. That Shallobai bequeathed her share in suit property in the name of the plaintiff. However, in the year 1993 the defendant obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the land bequeathed in his favour which led him to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
(3.)Defendant, however, denied the plaint allegations contending inter alia that said Shallobai was not married to Ramdeen, nor the plaintiff was ever adopted as son by Ramdeen. That the suit property being self acquired property of Ramdeen, after his death, the defendant, sole heir, succeeded to the suit property. The claim it was urged being baseless deserves to be negatived.