JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 22.07.2013 delivered in Title Appeal No. 04/2013 by the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. 3. While admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this court for hearing the appeal : “Whether the parties to the suit are liable to be guided by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 though they belonged to Tribal community?” 4. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellants and the sole respondent are full blood brother and sisters and they are the legal heirs of Surjya Mani Reang, on whose death the dispute between the parties cropped up resulting in filing the suit for partition, being Title Suit (Partition) No.14/2012 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, South Tripura, Udaipur [as it then was]. 5. The suit land as described by way of a schedule in the plaint indisputably belonged to the predecessor of the parties. The plaintiffs, the appellants herein, demanded the partition of the suit land, as according to them, by way of succession the parties are entitled to 1/4th share of the suit land. The trial court decreed the suit by holding that since the plaintiffs and the defendant are Hindu by practise, the provisions of Hindu Succession act, 1956 would apply for determining the succession and as such the preliminary decree declaring the share of the parties at 1/4th of the suit land was passed. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed the first appeal against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 19.01.2013, being Title Appeal No. 04/2013 in the court of the District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur [as it then was]. 6. By filing the written statement, the respondent herein, has contended that during the lifetime of Surjya Mani Reang, he settled the suit land by distributing the parts in favour of the parties. According to the respondent, the appellants after selling out their land had raised the demand of partition of the land which was settled by his father. As such, according to the defendant respondent, the plaintiff appellants are not entitled to any share of the suit land. 7. According to the respondent, the appellants after selling out their land had raised the demand of partition of the land which was settled by his father. As such, according to the defendant respondent, the plaintiff appellants are not entitled to any share of the suit land. 7. By the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2013, the first appellate court has returned the following finding and dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal : “From the discussion of the evidence on record it is found that suit land was already partitioned as per family settlement. Apart from this, as per Section 2 Sub-Section (2) of the Hindu Succession Act in absence of the Central Government notification, the Hindu Succession Act will not applicable for the Tribals of Tripura. Therefore, the question of succession of the property by the plaintiffs not proved. Accordingly, the appeal has merit as the suit is not maintainable.” The said judgment passed by the first appellate court is under challenge in this appeal. 8. In the State of Tripura, the customary practice of settling the land between the family members are an acknowledged practice and the Government of Tripura in the Revenue Department, by issuing the notification, has directed the various Departments including the Sub Registrars to accept such settlement. This aspect of the matter has not been challenged by the parties. Even the trial court has taken notice of the statement made by the sole defendant that during the lifetime of their father, according to the customary practise as prevalent in the Reang community, Surjya Mani Reang distributed 0.80 acres of land each to his three sisters and those land have been recorded in separate khatians on mutation, one of such khatians is the Khatian No.111. The plaintiffs later on transferred all those property they got by way of that settlement. However, as per the provisions of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, the khatian for the suit land was opened in the name of the parties showing their respective share. The defendant, however, has taken a rigid stand that the women in the tribal community are not entitled to succession of the properties left by the parent or brothers etc. 9. The defendant, however, has taken a rigid stand that the women in the tribal community are not entitled to succession of the properties left by the parent or brothers etc. 9. The finding that has been returned that the land belonged to Surjya Mani Reang got settled by Surjya Mani himself in his lifetime in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant, is based on the testimonies of DW.1 and the plaintiff appellants did not rebut the evidence that they have sold out the land as settled in their favour. 10. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, this court finds that unless that evidence is rebutted by the plaintiff appellants, it cannot be allowed to hold that they have any share in the suit land. Hence, there is no infirmity as such in the impugned judgment. However, the observation made in respect of subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been decided in a highly technical or superficial manner by both the courts. As the law has been discussed by this court in Kajal Rani Noatia Vs. Raybahadur Tripura & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 TLR 815, this court will not further dwell upon that aspect. 11. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.