S. S. SARAF, J. ( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal under S. 100 C. P. C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1991 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur district Sarguja (M. P.) in Civil Appeal No. 133-A/87 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25-7-1987 passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 82-A/84. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary for decision in this appeal in brief are as below :- One Gendu was the original owner of the disputed property as enumerated in the Schedule-A annexed to the plaint which shall hereinafter be referred to as disputed property. Gendu admittedly belonged to 'uraon' community which was a Scheduled Tribe as declared by constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. The said Gendu died in 1966-67 leaving behind his widow Smt. Deeno, the original defendant No. 2 who died during the pendency of the suit and two sons Bodhan Ram, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and Jethu, the defendant/respondent No. 2. Lalsai the appellant/defendant No. 1 is the son of Jethu. Previously Smt. Deeno instituted a Civil suit No. 40-A/75 for partition claiming 1/3rd share against her two sons Bodhan Ram and Jethu. On 6-5-1977 a compromise decree was passed on the basis of a compromise entered into by both the parties. In the comporomise decree the disputed property fell into the share of Smt. Deeno. It was also decreed that Smt. Deeno shall hold the property during her lifetime and shall not be able to alienate the same. On 2-6-1981 Smt. Deena executed a registered gift deed in relation to the disputed property in favour of Lalsai, the appellant. Bodhan Ram, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil Suit alleging that he and the other members of the branch of Gendu are members of scheduled tribe and are governed by their customary law in the matter of inheritance. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Deena died and thereafter the plaint was amended and it was pleaded that Bodhan Ram and Jethu are entitled to 1/2 share each in the disputed property. Accordingly a relief of partition was also claimed. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Deena died and thereafter the plaint was amended and it was pleaded that Bodhan Ram and Jethu are entitled to 1/2 share each in the disputed property. Accordingly a relief of partition was also claimed. Both the Courts below inter alia held that the parties being members of scheduled tribe are governed by their customary law though they have adopted Hindu law since times immemorial as it stood prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act' 1956 ). It has, further, been held that Smt. Deeno had merely life interest in the disputed property. It has also been held that in the absence of notification as envisaged in S. 2 (2) of the Act of 1956, the Act of 1956 shall not apply to the parties of the suit. It has also been held that compromise decree in civil suit No. 40-A/75 was binding upon parties and operates as res judicata wherein the disputed property was allotted to Smt. Deeno for her life with restriction to alienate the same. It is also held that Bodhan Ram and Jethu are the owners of the disputed property to the extent of 1/2 share each and the gift-deed dated 2-6-1981 is not binding upon them as Smt. Deeno was not legally competent to gift the disputed property to Lalsai, the appellant. ( 3 ) AGAINST the said judgment and decree, this appeal under S. 100 C. P. C. has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :-"whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts below erred in law in finding that after the death of her husband in the year 1966-67 the original defendant No. 2 Mst. Deeno had obtained 1/3rd share in the suit lands only till her lifetime and as such she was not competent to convey any title better than that to the defendant No. 1/appellant under the registered Gift Deed dated 2-6-1981 (Ex. P/3) executed by her in his favour?" ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having scrutinised the entire records of the Courts below, it is apparent that the said findings of the Courts below are not based on the correct proposition of law. Admittedly, the parties are 'uraon'. P/3) executed by her in his favour?" ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having scrutinised the entire records of the Courts below, it is apparent that the said findings of the Courts below are not based on the correct proposition of law. Admittedly, the parties are 'uraon'. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention on the provisions of S. 2 (2) of the Act, 1956 wherein it has been mentioned that the provisions of the said Act of 1956 shall not apply to the members of any scheduled tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, otherwise directs. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since no notification has yet been issued by the Central Government, the provisions of the Act of 1956 shall not be applicable to the members of the 'uraon' community. It has been held by this Court in Lachan Kunwar v. Budhwar in second Appeal No. 40 of 1982 (date of judgment 27-8-1987) that the Hindu Law as amended from time to time is applicable on the members of scheduled tribes of M. P. As such the provisions of the Act of 1956 are applicable to the members of scheduled tribe of Madhya Pradesh, though no notification as envisaged in S. 2 (2) of the said Act of 1956 has been issued by the Central Government. Therefore, in my view, the provisions of the Act, 1956 shall be applicable to 'uraon' community even though no notification as above has so far been issued by the Central Government. ( 5 ) THE learned Senior Advocate for the respondent has, further, drawn my attention on the decision of this Court in Sukhsen v. Shravan Kumar 1972 MPLJ 95 and has contended that 'uraon' are not Hindu and since the notification as envisaged in S. 2 (2) of the Act has not been issued by the Central Government, the provisions of the Act, 1956 are not applicable to 'uraon'. This proposition has already been considered by this Court in Lachhan Kanwar's case (supra) and therefore, as pointed out earlier, not only the provisions of Hindu Law but also the provisions of the Act of 1956 shall be applicable to the members of 'uraon' community. This proposition has already been considered by this Court in Lachhan Kanwar's case (supra) and therefore, as pointed out earlier, not only the provisions of Hindu Law but also the provisions of the Act of 1956 shall be applicable to the members of 'uraon' community. ( 6 ) SINCE the provisions of S. 14 of the Act of 1956 are applicable in the present case, obviously Smt. Deeno held the disputed property as a full owner and not as limited owner. ( 7 ) THE learned Senior Advocate for the respondent has contended that in view of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 40-A/75 Smt. Deeno had limited interest in the disputed property in view of the provisions of S. 14 (2) of the Act of 1956. As against this, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the provisions of S. 14 (2) of the Act apply only to such cases where grant is not in lieu of maintenance or in recognition of pre-existing rights but confers a fresh right or title for the first time. He has, further, contended that the claim of Smt. Deeno was for maintenance and is, therefore, a pre-existing right. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma v. V. Sesha Reddi (dead) by L. Rs. AIR 1977 SC 1944 . ( 8 ) HAVING given thoughtful consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has considerable force. The disputed property was given to Smt. Deeno in lieu of her maintenance right. It is apparent as held by the Supreme Court in V. Tulsamma's case (supra) that the claim of Hindu female for maintenance is undoubtedly a pre-existing right and therefore the provisions of S. 14 (2) of the Act shall not be applicable in the present case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma's case (supra) that where the grant is merely in recognition or in implementation of a pre-existing right to claim maintenance, the case falls beyond the purview of S. 14 (2) and comes squarely within the explanation to S. 14 (1) of the Act of 1956. It has been held by the Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma's case (supra) that where the grant is merely in recognition or in implementation of a pre-existing right to claim maintenance, the case falls beyond the purview of S. 14 (2) and comes squarely within the explanation to S. 14 (1) of the Act of 1956. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the contention of the learned Senior advocate for the respondent that in view of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 40-A/75 Smt. Deeno had a limited interest in the disputed property, cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) IN view of above, the findings of the Courts below that Smt. Deeno had obtained 1/3rd share in the disputed property only for her life time and as such she was not competent to execute the gift deed in favour of Lal Sai, the appellant, is not sustainable in law. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set-aside and consequently the suit instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 stands dismissed. Appeal allowed. .