JUDGMENT T.P. Sharma, J. 1. By this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'Code of Civil Procedure'), Appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 25.1.93 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 11 A/92, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.92 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 54-A/92 whereby suit filed by Plaintiff Appellant Mukundlal along with Appellants No. 2 to 4 was dismissed. 2. Present second appeal has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether Plaintiff's entitlement has to be ascertained under Section 7(1) (b) or 7 (1) (c) of the MP. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960? (b) Whether ignoring relevant plea and material evidence has materially affected the entitlement being ascertained under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Act? (c) Whether Ragini, Plaintiff No. 4, an unmarried major daughter on the appointed day is entitled to hold land under Section 6(i) read with Section 7(1) (a) under notification dated 26-2-76? (d) Whether on Defendant's admission coupled with entries in Revenue Record lands recorded as Khalihan, Kothar not used for agricultural purpose attracted exemption under Section 2(k) of the Act? 3. As per pleadings of the parties, Plaintiff Mukundlal and Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are members of joint Hindu family having holdings at village Ahilda, tahsil Baloda Bazaar, district Raipur and village Magarghata, tahsil and district Durg. Proceeding under Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960') amended vide Act of 20 of 1974 was initiated and tried by competent authority Respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner, Raipur. As per claim of Plaintiffs, competent authority has not considered claim of Plaintiff/Appellant No. 4 Ragini who was unmarried major daughter at the time of such proceeding and Plaintiff/Appellant No. 3 Ravish Kumar who was also entitled for 9 acres of unirrigated land. Competent authority has also net considered the land exempted from the operation of aforesaid Act and is included in the holdings of Plaintiffs/Appellants and thereby committee illegality. By filing written statement, Defendants/Respondents have denied adverse allegation and have alleged that on the basis of written submitted by Plaintiff Mukundlal and documents of age of Plaintiffs/Appellants furnished by Mukundlal they have assessed entitlement of Mukundlal's family, thereby they have not committed any illegality. By filing written statement, Defendants/Respondents have denied adverse allegation and have alleged that on the basis of written submitted by Plaintiff Mukundlal and documents of age of Plaintiffs/Appellants furnished by Mukundlal they have assessed entitlement of Mukundlal's family, thereby they have not committed any illegality. Plaintiffs/Appellants have preferred an appeal before Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue has remanded the case for reconsideration. 4. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur has dismissed the suit on the ground that Mukundlal has not pleaded number of members of his family, therefore, competent authority has rightly rejected claim of Ragini on the ground of her age on the basis of document furnished and produced by Plaintiff Mukundlal, father of Ragini. Judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged before the lower appellate Court and while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the judgment & decree impugned, judgment and decree of the trial Court and records of the Courts below. 6. As regards the claim of exemption of Khalihan and Kothar on the ground that they are not used for agricultural purpose is not sustainable under the law. Khalihan and Kothar are used for stocking of agricultural product and its associate purpose, therefore, Plaintiffs/Appellants are not entitled for any exemption of Khalihan and Kothar. 7. As per pleadings and evidence of Plaintiff Mukundlal, he has nowhere pleaded that his family consists of three adult members, four minor members and one married daughter i.e., total eight number. Plaintiffs have straightway pleaded and claimed that minor Ravish is entitled for 9 acres of the land and Appellant No. 4 daughter Ragini at the time of proceeding was unmarried and was adult, therefore, she is entitled for 30 acres of the land. Plaintiffs were under obligation to plead and prove their claim, but reason best known to them neither they have pleaded nor their witness i.e., Plaintiff No. 1 Mukundlal (since deceased) has deposed anything in his evidence about members of his family. In the absence of such evidence, trial Court and lower appellate Court have rightly rejected claim of Plaintiffs relating to Appellant No. 3 Ravish Kumar as 6th member of family of Mukundlal. 8. In the absence of such evidence, trial Court and lower appellate Court have rightly rejected claim of Plaintiffs relating to Appellant No. 3 Ravish Kumar as 6th member of family of Mukundlal. 8. I am not impressed by arguments advanced on behalf of counsel for Appellants that as per evidence, Courts were under obligation to consider claim of Plaintiffs which they have not founded in their pleadings or they have not proved by oral evidence. 9. As regards the question of claim of Appellant No. 4 Ragini, definitely as per oral and documentary evidence competent authority has rejected claim relating to Appellant No. 4 Ragini on the evidence furnished by her father Mukundlal (since deceased) but thereafter he has furnished another set of evidence relating to date of birth of Ragini vide Ex.P/2C which reveals that her date of birth was 26.12.55 recorded by Registrar, Birth and Death appointed under Birth and Death Registration Act. ExP/2C reveals the Registration No. 253 and same has been registered on 26.12.55. It reveals that competent authority has not considered this document which was certificate issued by public authority and thereby committed illegality. Both the Courts below were under obligation to consider unrebutted evidence relating to age of Appellant No. 4 Ragini on the basis of evidence of his father and her certificate issued by public authority but both the Courts below have not considered this evidence and thereby committed illegality. 10. In accordance with Section 7 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 1960, family of Plaintiff Mukundlal was entitled for 54 acres of the land excluding claim of Appellant Ho.4 Ragini and major daughter Ragini v/as further entitled for 30 acres of the land. 11. Consequently, substantial questions of law (a), (b) and (c) formulated for the decision of the appeal are decided as positive and substantial question of law (d) is decided as negative. 12. On the basis of aforesaid finding on the substantial questions of law formulated for decision of the appeal, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and suit is decreed on following terms: (1) Family of Plaintiff Mukundlal is entitled for 54 acres of unirrigated land. (2) Ku. Ragini major daughter at the time of such proceeding is entitled for 30 acres of unirrigated land. 13. Parties shall bear their own costs. 14. Judgment and decree of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and suit is decreed on following terms: (1) Family of Plaintiff Mukundlal is entitled for 54 acres of unirrigated land. (2) Ku. Ragini major daughter at the time of such proceeding is entitled for 30 acres of unirrigated land. 13. Parties shall bear their own costs. 14. Advocate fee as per schedule. 15. Decree be drawn accordingly.