ORDER A.M. Sapre, J. 1. The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected MA being MA 8/98 as both these appeals arise out of one case and questions the legality and validity of one impugned order. The impugned order is dated 12.8.1997 passed by ADJ, Kukshi in two succession cases being Case No. 3/ 96 and 4/96. This appeal and other connected appeal is preferred under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act to challenge the common order dated 12.8.1987 passed in aforementioned 2 cases. Facts in brief need mention. They lie in a narrow campass. 2. One Mangilal by cast Tribe (Bhilala) was working as peon in Co-operative Bank at a place called Kukshi in District Dhar. He died on 1.2.1995. He had to his credit some amount-such as gratuity, family pension, G.P.F., family benefit fund etc. 3. On his death, as many as five ladies came forward to claim the aforesaid amount. One Rashambai (appellant) claiming to be his legally married wife applied to the Court being Case No. 3/96 claiming Succession Certificate. Then another lady Shakuntala applied to the same Court being Case No. 4/96 claiming herself to the legally married wife of late Mangilal for Succession Certificate. In these 2 cases which were consolidated for hearing, when objections were invited, 3 ladies - Gopibai, Parubai and Gorabai came forward to claim their right. Gopibai claim herself to be the mother of late Mangilal whereas other two - i.e. Parubai and Gorabai claimed as sisters of late Mangilal. 4. Only Shakuntala and Reshambai entered in witness box. Both claimed Mangilal was their husband and, therefore, they have a right to claim the property left by Mangilal. One more relative was examined. 5. The Trial Court by impugned order held both Reshambai and Shakuntala to be the legally married wives of late Mangilal. It was held that Gopibai is the mother of late Mangilal.It was then held that since parties are not Hindu but belong to be Tribal cast (Bhilala), they would not be governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act nor the principle of Hindu law. It was further held that in view of customary practice deposed by the parties, only three ladies i.e. Reshambai, Shakuntala Bai i.e. wives and mother Gopibai will be entitled to get in equal share i.e. each getting 1 /3rd in Rs. 52,248/-. It was further held that in view of customary practice deposed by the parties, only three ladies i.e. Reshambai, Shakuntala Bai i.e. wives and mother Gopibai will be entitled to get in equal share i.e. each getting 1 /3rd in Rs. 52,248/-. Whereas both wives will get family pension in equal share i.e. half/half. It is this order which is impugned only by Reshambai - one of the wife of late Mangilal by filing these 2 appeals. There is no appeal either at the instance of Shakuntala or Gopibai. 6. Heard Mr. B.K. Gupta learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nimgoankar learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. 7. Learned Counsel for appellant in both the appeals (Reshambai) while assailing the legality and validity of impugned order urged that the Trial Court made a mistake in coming to a conclusion that Shakuntala is the legally married wife. According to learned Counsel, Reshambai alone was the only legally married wife of late Mangilal and hence she alone should have been held entitled to claim the property left by Mangilal being his sole legally married wife. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order and prayed for its upholding. In his submission, the finding recorded by learned trial Judge is well founded and does not call for any interference either on facts or in law. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of case, I am of the view that impugned order deserves to be upheld resulting in dismissal of both the appeals. In my opinion, there is ample evidence led by Shakuntala to prove her marriage with Mangilal. She not only stated on oath but filed several photographs to prove the factum of marriage. These photographs completely and unmistakably proved the marriage to have taken place between Mangilal and Shakuntala. On the other hand, Reshambai could not lead any evidence to disprove these facts and the evidence led by Shakuntala, except to state that Shakuntala was the keep of Mangilal. Such evidence is not acceptable in view of the cogent evidence led by Shakuntala to prove her marriage with Mangilal. I accordingly concur with the finding of learned trial Judge on this issue and affirm this finding. 10. Such evidence is not acceptable in view of the cogent evidence led by Shakuntala to prove her marriage with Mangilal. I accordingly concur with the finding of learned trial Judge on this issue and affirm this finding. 10. It has been the case of parties that they are not governed by Hindu Law - they not being the Hindus but belong to a Tribe class. The parties then viewed on the custom prevalent in their cast. The requirement to prove custom in customary law is well settled. It is ruled as is clear from Mulla in his classic commentry on Hindu Law (16th edition page 77) where, the learned author has set out the essentials of valid custom. 17. Essentials of a valid custom A custom is a rule which in a particular family or a particular class or community or in a particular district, has from long usage obtain the force of law. It must be ancient, certain and reasonable, and being in derogation of the general rules of law, must be construed strictly (p). It is further essential that it should be established to be so by clear and unambiguous evidence, for it is only be means of such evidence that the Courts can be assured of its existence and of the fact that it possesses the conditions of antiquity and certainty on which alone is legal title to recognition depends (q). It must not be opposed to morality or public policy and it must not be expressly forbidden by the Legislature (r). It must not be in derogation of the fundamental rights of a citizen to hold and dispose of property by absolutely prohibiting alienation of property even after actual division (rl). Whether the evidence shows that the customs alleged was not followed in numerous instances the custom could not be held to be proved(s). A customs derives its force from the fact that is/ has, from long usage, obtained the force of law. It must be ancient but it is not of the essence of this rule that its antiquity must in every case be carried back to a period beyond the memory of man. A customs derives its force from the fact that is/ has, from long usage, obtained the force of law. It must be ancient but it is not of the essence of this rule that its antiquity must in every case be carried back to a period beyond the memory of man. All that is necessary to prove is that the usage has 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 a particular locality. (2) It is incumbent on a party setting up a custom to allege and prove the custom on which he relies. Custom cannot be extended by analogy. It must be established inductively and not be a priori methods. Customs cannot be matter of mere theory but must always be a matter of fact and one customs cannot be deduced from another. It is well established law that custom cannot be enlarged by party of reasoning since it is the usage that makes the law and not the reason of the thing. 11. In my opinion, parties in this case did not lead evidence required to the standard of proving the custom as referred supra, yet in my opinion, relying upon the ratio of Supreme Court decision rendered in AIR 1953 SC 201 , Saraswati v. Jagdambai, that in such type of eventuality, the Court should rely upon the maxim of rules of justice, equity and good conscience, I affirm the finding of Trial Court on the issue of distribution of assets of deceased Mangilal. As observed supra, the Trial Court made a fair distribution of assets. So far as the deposit of Rs. 52,248/- was concerned, the same has been directed to be distributed equally between the mother Gopibai and 2 wives namely Reshambai and Shakuntala Bai each getting one third. Likewise, so far as family pension is concerned, it is directed that both wives of late Mangilal will get in equal share. In my opinion, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances and the legal quibblings the distribution of assets assets is fair, reasonable and based on equitable consideration. No interference is called for even on this finding. I concur with this finding too and affirm it but slightly on different ground than the one recorded by Trial Court. 12. In my opinion, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances and the legal quibblings the distribution of assets assets is fair, reasonable and based on equitable consideration. No interference is called for even on this finding. I concur with this finding too and affirm it but slightly on different ground than the one recorded by Trial Court. 12. Accordingly both the appeals fail and are dismissed.