LAWS(MPH)-2024-4-22

DUJIYABAI Vs. RAYATIBAI

Decided On April 10, 2024
Dujiyabai Appellant
V/S
Rayatibai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal u/s 100 CPC has been filed by appellants/plaintiffs against judgment and decree dtd. 21/12/2022 passed in RCA No.36/2019 [Mst.Dujiya Bai and others Vs. Rayati Bai and others] by First District Judge, Lakhnadon whereby the appeal preferred by appellants/plaintiffs have been dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Lakhnadon, District Seoni in Civil Suit No.12-A/2016 [Dujiya Bai and others Vs. Rayati Bai and others} dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit properties mentioned in paragraph 2A of the impugned judgment has been affirmed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole question in this case is whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply or the parties would be governed by customary rights prevailing in 'Gond' tribe.

(3.) On perusal of judgment of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court it is reflected that there is no issue on this aspect whether the parties would be governed by Hindu Law or 'Gond' tribe. But, the appellants/plaintiffs have pleaded that they are governed by Hindu Law. Since no question was framed on this issue whether parties were governed by Hindu Law and other issues if they have been wrongly framed, then the appellants should have requested the Courts to frame necessary issue. In fact, on perusal of order- sheet dtd. 5/10/2016 of the trial Court it is seen that when the issues were framed both the parties did not object on the questions that were framed. Therefore, wrong framing of issue, especially the one whether parties are governed by Hindu law or Tribal law, is immaterial at this stage.