JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the plaintiff, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the finding recorded by the Lower Appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court that there was no partition, is perverse in the eyes of law ? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that the plaintiff's father namely Mitthu was owner of the land bearing Khasra No.35/1 admeasuring 2.79 acres. It was pleaded that on death of her father the suit land devolved on the plaintiff. However, the defendants No.1 to 3 dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession. 3. The defendants filed the written statement, in which inter-alia it was pleaded that late Mitthu during his life time gifted half share in the suit property to the plaintiff by a registered gift-deed dated 17.4.1975. Deceased Hemraj namely brother of the plaintiff by a registered sale-deed dated 24.7.1987 alienated his share in favour of the respondent No.1 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.1995 inter-alia held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit land devolved on her by succession. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The aforesaid decree was affirmed in appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even in the absence of partition, the appellant would be entitled to half share in the suit property. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Lower Appellate Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. From perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had amended the plaint and in paragraph-2B of the plaint it was pleaded that the parties are tribal and as per custom prevalent in the community, a daughter has an equal share in the property as that of a son. From perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had amended the plaint and in paragraph-2B of the plaint it was pleaded that the parties are tribal and as per custom prevalent in the community, a daughter has an equal share in the property as that of a son. The defendants in the written statement specifically denied the aforesaid fact and pleaded that the parties to the suit are tribal and there is no such custom prevalent in the community that on the death of father, the property devolves in equal share on the son and daughter. It is a trite law that the plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of case and has to prove the same. In the instant case, no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to prove the custom prevalent in the community that on the death of her father, the property devolves on the son and daughter in equal share. In the cases of Shakun Bai wd/o. Somnath Kushram and Others Vs. Siya Bai wd/o. Somnath and Others, 1999 (2) M.P.L.J. 307 , Kumar Bai w/o. Anand Ram Vs. Anandram Nathu Thakur, 1998 (2) M.P.L.J. 584 it has been held by a Bench of this Court that the tribal in the State of Madhya Pradesh are not governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to prove the custom which was the foundation of her claim. 7. For the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the substantial question of law framed by this Court does not arise in the facts and law of the case. Accordingly, it is not necessary to answer the same. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.