JUDGMENT : This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Simdega in Title Appeal No. 5 of 2001 confirming the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2001 passed by learned Munsif, Simdega in the Title Suit No. 5 of 1996. 2. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgments on various grounds. 3. The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over the landed property appertaining to Khata No. 57 and Khata No. 58 of Village Simdega Dumartoli, District Gumla; and for declaration that defendant No. 1 has not right to transfer the Khatiyani Raiyati property, to some of the defendants. Defendant No. 1 was the father of the plaintiff/appellant. Defendant No. 2, Peter Bilung is brother of plaintiff/appellant. Defendant No. 3 Joachim Soren is the son-in-law of defendant No. 1. 4. The learned trial court inter alia held that it was clear that at least up to 1985, the plaintiff along with defendants No. 1 and 2 were joint and that defendant No. 1 in the capacity of the head of the family, sold land to some of the defendants for family need. In one of the sale deeds, plaintiff himself was witness. Trial court dismissed the suit. 5. The plaintiff filed the said appeal. The lower appellate court after considering the respective cases and evidences of the parties, allowed the appeal in part to the extent that the sale deed (Ext.-G/2) executed in favour of the defendant No. 3, namely, Joachim Soren was declared to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff/ appellant. It was observed by the learned lower appellate court that the members of Scheduled Tribe were governed by their customary law and usage. The plaintiff did not plead as to on what basis his father-defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the properties to some of the defendants. The plaintiff also did not show any thing in his deposition about the custom and usage prevalent in his community with regard to immovable property. Thus in the absence of such pleadings and proof, it could not be said that the plaintiff had exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property. The plaintiff also did not show any thing in his deposition about the custom and usage prevalent in his community with regard to immovable property. Thus in the absence of such pleadings and proof, it could not be said that the plaintiff had exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property. The learned lower appellate court also considered the argument of the defendant/respondent that admittedly the parties were “Kharia” and according to their custom and usage, the sons of Kharia father are not entitled to claim any interest in the property so long their father is alive. Nevertheless, sons would get equal shares together with their father, if a partition takes place during life time of their father. The plaintiff did not plead that there had been partition of the ancestral immovable property during life time of his father, but said in his deposition that there was partition between two brothers, which was beyond the pleadings. This position was not disputed by the learned lawyer for the plaintiff before the learned lower appellate court. It was further held that the relief claimed by the plaintiff was defective as the alleged sale deed dated 22.11.1994 was actually a deed of gift made in favour of defendant No. 6 by defendant No. 4. The learned lower appellate court considered each document independently and held that the sale deeds were valid except the sale deed (Ext.-G/2) made by the father of the plaintiff/appellant in favour of his son-in-law, defendant No. 3. In my opinion, the learned lower appellate court appreciated the respective cases and the evidences of the parties in right perspective and no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, no costs.