JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.— The plaintiffs having remained unsuccessful in the two courts below have come up in second appeal before this court under para 32 of the H.P. (Courts) Order, 1948. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case .giving rise to the present case are these. One Bhin, son of Tega was the owner and in possession of the following land : - (i) measuring 5 Bighas 19 biswas comprising of khasra Nos. 612, 615, 626, 622, 634 and 635 of village Karian, Tehsil Chamba; and (ii) measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas comprising of khasra Nos. 184, 185,194, 215, 223 and 235/1 of village Baili, Pargana Panjla, Tehsil Chamba. The said Bhin died some time in the year 1958 leaving behind a widow Smt. Dhiko, and three daughters, Smt. Bhoto, Sikhni and Punni. The mutation of inheritance qua the estate of Bhin came to be sanctioned in favour of his widow and three daughters abovenamed. On 10-4-1972, Smt. Dhiko, Sikhni and Punni gifted their shares in the estate of deceased Bhin vide a registered gift deed in favour of Smt. Bhoto. 3. A suit was filed on 27-7-1972 by S/Shri Birbal and Moti, brothers of Bhin, and one Sukho grand son of Khemi (brother of deceased Bhin) for a declaration that the gift executed by St. Dhiko, Sikhni and Punni in favour of Smt. Bhoto had no effect on their reversionary rights. Smt. Dhiko died during the pendency of the said suit on 5-3-1975. The suit was, therefore, withdrawn on 23-5-1975 with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 4. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession of the land, described above and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute, on 2-9-1975. It was averred that the parties belong to "Gaddi" community of Chamba a "Scheduled Tribe". The provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are not applicable to them. They are governed by custom in the matter of succession. As per the custom prevalent in their community, if a male owner dies issueless, his estate devolves upon his widow till her life time. Such widow has no right to alienate the property in any manner and after her death, the property is to devolve upon brothers and nephews of the last male holder. Daughters and females have no right of inheritance. Such widow has no right to alienate the property in any manner and after her death, the property is to devolve upon brothers and nephews of the last male holder. Daughters and females have no right of inheritance. After the death of the abovenamed Bhin in 1958, his widow Smt. Dhiko inherited the land in dispute and remained in possession thereof as per the custom till her life time. The gift made by Smt. Dhiko, Sikhni and Punni in 1972 in favour of Smt. Bhoto is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Similarly, the mutation of inheritance qua the land in dispute sanctioned in favour of Smt. Dhiko, Sikhni, Punni and Bhoto being contrary to the custom as to inheritance is bad, illegal, null and void and having no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. After the death of Smt. Dhiko on 5-3-1975, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased Bhin and entitled to succeed to the land in dispute. 5. The defendants while resisting the suit denied the parties to be "Scheduled Tribe" and governed by custom. It was averred that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was applicable. It was further pleaded that even if the parties were held to be governed by custom, there was no custom which dis-entitled the widow and/or daughter from inheritance. The mutation of inheritance in respect of the land in dispute was rightly sanctioned in favour of the widow and the daughters of deceased Bhin. The gift executed by Smt. Dhiko, Sikhni and Punni in favour of Smt. Bhoto was legal and valid and since after such gift Smt. Bhoto was coming in exclusive possession of the land in dispute as sole owner thereof. Objections as to the suit being time-barred and the plaintiffs being estopped by their own acts and conduct were also raised. The learned trial court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties: - 1. Whether the parties are Gaddies ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether they are covered by custom in matters of succession ? If so, what that custom is ? .....OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are collaterals of Bhin deceased ? OPP 4. Whether gift dated 10-4-1972 by Smt. Dhiko wd/o Bhin deceased and defendant Nos. Whether the parties are Gaddies ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether they are covered by custom in matters of succession ? If so, what that custom is ? .....OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are collaterals of Bhin deceased ? OPP 4. Whether gift dated 10-4-1972 by Smt. Dhiko wd/o Bhin deceased and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 is invalid and not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs ? OPP 5. What is the effect of withdrawal of the earlier suit on the facts of this case? OPP 6. Relief. 6. The learned trial court while answering issues Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative held the parties to be "Gaddies" and a "Scheduled Tribe". The parties were held to be governed by custom in the matter of succession. Provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were held to be not applicable. The plaintiffs were held to have not been able to prove the custom as alleged by them whereby the widow and daughter were debarred from inheritance. Under issue No. 3, the plaintiffs were held to be the collaterals of the deceased Bhin. Issue No. 4 was answered in the negative and the gift in favour of Smt. Bhoto was held to be legal and valid. While deciding issue No. 5 against the defendants, the learned trial court held that the withdrawal of the previous suit had no effect on the maintainability of the present case. The suit of the plaintiffs was, however, found to be hopelessly barred by time. Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 30-6-1983, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial court. 7. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs before the learned District Judge, Chamba, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11-11-1987. The learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the learned trial court holding the parties to be "Gaddies" and a "Scheduled Tribe" within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and as such the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the parties. On the question of custom, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the custom governing the parties under which a widow gets only a limited interest in the estate of her deceased husband and the daughters are excluded from inheritance. 8. On the question of custom, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the custom governing the parties under which a widow gets only a limited interest in the estate of her deceased husband and the daughters are excluded from inheritance. 8. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs assailing the concurrent findings of the two courts below. It is contended that the findings of the learned District Judge are self-contradictory inasmuch as after holding that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are not applicable, had, at the same time, held that the general custom of Chamba District stood abrogated after the corning into force of the said Act. Once the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is held to be not applicable, the parties would be governed by general custom in the matter of succession. The custom governing the parties tood proved and established from the evidence coming on record according to which custom the daughters could not inherit the properties of their father. Alternatively, it was contended that even if the parties are held to be governed by general Hindu law, even then female heirs had only a limited estate and they could not alienate the property by way of gift or otherwise. 9. It is not disputed that the parties are "Gaddies" of Chamba District and belong to a "Scheduled Tribe" within the meaning of Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides : — "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs." Therefore, the parties being members of a "Scheduled Tribe" within the meaning of Article 366 (25) of the Constitution of India, admittedly the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, do not apply to them. 10. As per the plaintiffs, the parties are governed by custom in the matters of succession under which a widow inherits the estate of her deceased husband only as a limited owner having no right of alienation. The daughters are excluded from inheriting the estate of their father. 10. As per the plaintiffs, the parties are governed by custom in the matters of succession under which a widow inherits the estate of her deceased husband only as a limited owner having no right of alienation. The daughters are excluded from inheriting the estate of their father. After the death of such widow, the property would devolve upon the collaterals of the deceased husband. 11. It is well settled that custom is a fact which must be pleaded and proved by authoritative pronouncements or by instances in which it has been followed or by some other evidence, it cannot be established by dialectics. It is equally well settled that a custom to be legally binding must be ancient, certain and invariable and the onus lies heavily on the party setting up a custom either at variance with the general custom or the personal law governing the parties and it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. 12. The apex court in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231 has held that a usage must be proved to have been acted upon in practice for such a long period and with such invariability as to show that it has, by common consent, been submitted to as the established governing rule of that particular locality. 13. The plaintiffs have pleaded in para 3 of their plaint that there is a general custom amongst Gaddies to the effect that if a landowner dies leaving behind no male issue, his widow, if any, would inherit his estate as a limited owner during her life time without any right to alienate such property in any manner. After the death of such widow, the estate would devolve upon the collaterals of the deceased landowner. Daughters and other females have no right of inheritance. 14. Plaintiff Moti, while appearing as PW 1, has stated that In Gaddi community if a man dies leaving behind no son, his estate would be inherited by his collaterals. His widow would get only maintenance during her life time. He further stated that a widow in Gaddi community cannot make a gift or a will. 14. Plaintiff Moti, while appearing as PW 1, has stated that In Gaddi community if a man dies leaving behind no son, his estate would be inherited by his collaterals. His widow would get only maintenance during her life time. He further stated that a widow in Gaddi community cannot make a gift or a will. This statement of the plaintiff himself runs counter to the pleadings wherein it has been spelt out that a widow gets a life estate in the property of her deceased husband- PW4 Ronki has also deposed to the similar effect as has been deposed by PW-1 Moti. PW2 Saili and PW 3 Devo have stated about the custom prevalent in the Gaddi community as has been pleaded in para 3 of the plaint. While PW 2 could not give any instance of the custom, PW 3 has admitted during cross-examination that the estate of one Jawahar, father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 Baisakhi, was inherited by his daughter. PW 4 Ronki also could not give any instance of his Gaddi community where the property of a deceased had been inherited by the collaterals in preference to the daughters. 15. PW 1 Moti, plaintiff, has admitted during the course of cross-examination that his son had purchased land in village Ghar Muhani from Smt. Dhiko, Sikhni, Punni and Bhoto, which they had inherited from the deceased Bhin. This sale has not been challenged in this case. Admittedly, the land subject-matter of this sale is not included in the land in dispute. The mere fact that this sale has not been assailed by the plaintiffs goes to show that the plaintiffs admit the right of inheritance of Smt. Dhiko, Sikhni, Punni and Bhoto to the estate of deceased Bhin. 16. Apart from the oral evidence, the plaintiffs have placed on record copies of three judgments by way of instances to prove the custom. Ex. PX is the copy of judgment dated 21-12-1942 of Chief Judge, Chamba. The case pertains to custom in the matter of succession in respect of Brahmin agriculturists of District Chamba. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the custom prevailing amongst Brahimns and Gaddies was similar. Ex. PX is the copy of judgment dated 21-12-1942 of Chief Judge, Chamba. The case pertains to custom in the matter of succession in respect of Brahmin agriculturists of District Chamba. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the custom prevailing amongst Brahimns and Gaddies was similar. Besides, in this case the primary question involved was with regard to the power of a widow to alienate the property by way of gift which she had inherited from her deceased husband and which was alleged to be ancestral in the hands of her deceased husband. Ex. PY is the copy of judgment dated 31-7-1962 of the Senior Sub-Judge, Chamba. This was a case pertaining to Gaddi Rajputs. Here the parties admitted that they were governed by custom in the matter of succession and under the custom daughters have no right of inheritance. Ex. PZ is the copy of judgment dated 22nd Kartik 1988(BK) of the then Ruler of erstwhile Chamba State. This case pertains to Chamba town and the parties therein were not "Gaddies". 17. The defendants have also placed on record documents to show that widow and duagher(s) in Gaddi community do inherit the property of the deceased landowner. Ex. D-2 is the copy of mutation dated 20-7-1961 whereby the mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate in village Baily of the deceased Jawahar son of Gokal was sanctioned in favour of his widow Smt. Minjru and daughters Smt. Chuhri and Surmi. This Jawahar, admittedly, is the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 Baisakhi. Similarly vide Ex. D-4 the mutation of inheritance qua the estate of abovenamed Jawahar in Gharmani was sanctioned in favour of his widow and daughters on 1-1-1960. Vide X. D-5, the mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate of Haudi son of Shiama was sanctioned in favour of his sons, daughters, predeceased daughters children and widow in equal shares on 18-1-1964. Ex. D-6 is the copy of mutation of inheritance dated 28-5-1959 sanctioned qua the estate of deceased Panchhi son of Sagar in favour of his widow and daughters. 18. The evidence coming on record by way of specific instances goes to show that even if there is a custom governing the parties as alleged by the plaintiffs, the same has not been followed uniformly inasmuch as there have been. departures therefrom. Therefore, such custom has lost its binding force. 18. The evidence coming on record by way of specific instances goes to show that even if there is a custom governing the parties as alleged by the plaintiffs, the same has not been followed uniformly inasmuch as there have been. departures therefrom. Therefore, such custom has lost its binding force. The two courts below on proper appreciation of evidence coming on record have rightly held that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the requisite custom. Be it stated that the case of the plaintiffs is preimarily based on custom and not on general Hindu law. Therefore, in the absence of proof of specific custom governing the parties, the suit of the plaintiffs has been rightly dismissed by the J two courts below. 19. The learned trial court had non-suited the plaintiffs also on the ground of limitation by holding the suit to be time-barred. Though such findings were assailed by the plaintiffs before the learned District Judge as is evident from ground No. 9 of the grounds of appeal, no findings on this point have been returned by the learned District Judge. 20. Admittedly, Smt. Dhiko died on 5-3-1975. The present suit for possession of the land in dispute was filed by the plaintiffs on 2-9-1975 claiming themselves to be the reversioners of the deceased Bhin. The suit, thus, having been filed within twelve years of the death of Smt. Dhiko, on the face of it, is within time. The findings of the learned trial court, which are to the contrary, on the point of limitation are bad and liable to be setaside. Resultantly subject to the modification of findings on the question of limitation, the present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.