C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment 6f reversal. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed suit for declaration of title as also possession. Civil Judge, Class II, jashpurnagar by judgment and decree dated 22. 7. 1978 passed in Civil Suit No. 29a/77 decreed the suit. Defendants aggrievled by the same preferred appeal and the Additional District Judge, jashpurnagar by judgment and decree dated 13. 3. 1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 36a/87, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal and by order dated 3. 12. 1990, appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "whether, the plaintiff as married daughter and sole heir of her father Lukas, who died in the year 1973, is entitled to inherit, to the in exclusion to respondents, all the properties left by him (Lukas) and which Law of Succession would apply to the parties ?" ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the suit land was acquired by Soma, who had three sons, namely, Lukas, Fransis and Joseph and the plaintiff is the daughter of Lukas, who is dead. Defendants are the heirs and successors in interest of Fransis and joseph. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Lukas, name of his second wife, namely, Baronika was recorded in relation to the suit land and after she died issueless plaintiff's name has been recorded. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that her name has been recorded in relation to one-third share of Lukas, but a dispute was raised by the defendants and accordingly plaintiff was asked to get his title declared by a competent Civil court. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the defendants, plaintiff is the married daughter of Lukas and according to the customs of Urao caste married daughter has no interest on the father's property. ( 5 ) TRIAL Court on the pleadings of the parties framed various issues including the issue as to whether the plaintiff has title over the suit land according to the custom of Urao caste, although she was married in the year 1950. ( 5 ) TRIAL Court on the pleadings of the parties framed various issues including the issue as to whether the plaintiff has title over the suit land according to the custom of Urao caste, although she was married in the year 1950. Trial Court on consideration of the materials placed before it found that there is no substance in the stand of the defendants that married daughter does not get property of her father. It is relevant here to state that excepting the oral evidence, no other material has been placed in the suit on the question of custom of the parties. Oral evidence on the said question is also very scanty. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and equal number of witnesses have been examined by the defendants. PW 2 Philip has stated in his evidence that in Urao caste property is given to the daughter even after the marriage. DW 1 Marry has stated in her evidence that in Urao caste married daughter does not get share in the property of her father. DW 2 Alvis in his examination-in-chief has stated that in Urao caste married daughters do not get share in the father's property. However, this witness has clearly stated in his cross-examination that a person who has no son, daughter's name is recorded in respect of the father's land. Trial Court referring to the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, particularly the statement of DW 2 Alvis that the name of married daughter is recorded over the land of a person, who has no son, held that plaintiff has title over the property. It is relevant here to state that there is no controversy that plaintiff's father had no son. However, the lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff has nowhere stated in the plaint that in Urao caste married daughters get share in the property of their father and accordingly held that the plaintiff's oral evidence on this question is inadmissible. Thereafter, the lower appellate Court has relied on the evidence of the defendants' witnesses and found that in urao caste married daughter has no share in the property of her father. ( 6 ) MR. Sohane appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that the plaintiff being the sole heir of her father Lukas is entitled to inherit the property of her father. ( 6 ) MR. Sohane appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that the plaintiff being the sole heir of her father Lukas is entitled to inherit the property of her father. He further submits that on the basis of the materials placed by the parties, it is not established that in Urao caste married daughters do not get share in the property of their father. In the present case excepting the oral evidence of the witnesses referred to above, no material has been placed on this quesiton. As pointed out by the Trial court DW 2 Alvis has admitted in his cross-examination that a person who has no son, married daughters' name is recorded in respect of the land. In my opinion, in the state of evidence, it is difficult to hold that in Urao caste there is custom that married daughter shall have no share although. the father had no son. However, it is made clear that this finding is confined to the present case and may not be considered as precedent on the question of custom as the parties have not led sufficient evidence in this regard. Having concurred with the Trial Court that there is no custom depriving a married daughter share in the property of her father, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree prayed for. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate court are set aside and that of the Trial Court restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Second appeal allowed. .