Short Note : Facts in brief of the case are that the original owner of the suit lands was Samaru. The appellant and the respondent No.4 who are his married daughters, as plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for possession of the same. The respondent No.3 is their step mother who effected sale of the suit lands in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by two separate registered sale-deeds. The purchasers secured possession over the suit lands in pursuance of the said alienations. According to the pleadings of the appellant and the respondent No.4, as the respondent No.3 had remarried before the alleged sales, she divested herself of all rights and interest in the suit lands and as such the transfers effected by her were invalid, conferring no title upon the transferees. In the alternative they also pleaded that even if it is held that remarriage by the respondent No.3 was of no consequence still she had no right in any case to sell their shares which was 1/3rd each being daughters of Samaru. In such circumstances they would be entitled to get possession of the entire suit lanes subject to the right of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for partition of their share as purchasers to the extent of the share of the respondent No.3. Held : It was also submitted that in the present case neither Hindu Law could be applied, nor any custom having been proved, the provisions of section 6 of C. P. Laws Act, 1875 would be applicable for deciding the succession when it opened after the death of Samaru. But all these reasonings lose the ground if para 1 of the plaint is looked into. 2. Thus, the appellant's own case is that they and their forefathers have adopted Hindu Law from generations specially on matters of succession. That being so, the submission of her counsel here had been contrary to the pleadings which cannot be permitted to be advanced. The appellant is bound by the pleadings set up in the plaint. Even in their written statement the respondents 1 to 3 have accepted that fact of the plaint. Thus, principles of Hindu Law would be applicable to the present case. The appellant, respondents Nos. The appellant is bound by the pleadings set up in the plaint. Even in their written statement the respondents 1 to 3 have accepted that fact of the plaint. Thus, principles of Hindu Law would be applicable to the present case. The appellant, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are gonds is also not in dispute and as such belong to Scheduled tribe, thereby applicability of the Hindu Succession Act is eliminated in view of the provisions of section 2(2) of the said Act. So applying section 43 of the Hindu Law it is clear that the daughters of Samaru could not inherit from him until his widow respondent No. 3 is alive. To say in other words respondent No.3 alone succeeded to the estate of her deceased husband Samaru. Appeal dismissed.