JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Also heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 2. The appellant/plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment & Order dated 01.11.2019 and Decree dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip in Civil Suit No. 6/2018, by which the respondent No. 3 has been declared as the legal heir of the deceased F. Laltanpuia, in respect of the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016 and a Vertical Band Saw 18”. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016 belonged to the grand-father of the appellant/plaintiff, namely F. Laltanpuia, who had 6 (six) children, i.e., the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the appellant’s father, F. Lalsangkima, who was the youngest sibling. 4. During the lifetime of the appellant’s grand-father, all the children of F. Laltanpuia, including the appellant’s father F. Lalsangkima got married and lived in separate households, away from the ancestral property covered by LSC No. CAD- 606301/01/228 of 2016. However, after the appellant’s father and mother decided to live separately, the appellant’s father F. Lalsangkima came back into the ancestral property and lived with the appellant’s grand-father, F. Laltanpuia from the year 2007. The appellant continued to live with his mother and did not join his father, who had re-entered the ancestral/parental property. 5. The appellant’s grand-father expired on 27.11.2010. After the death of the appellant’s grand-father, the respondent No. 3 entered the ancestral property along with his family and lived with the appellant’s father. The appellant’s father expired on 25.03.2018. 6. The appellant, thereafter filed an application for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the ancestral property covered by LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016, vide Heirship Application No. 25/2018, which was submitted before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip. After the respondents had entered appearance in the said case and objections had been raised by the respondents on the maintainability of the Heirship Application, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip, vide Order dated 07.06.2018, dismissed Heirship Application No. 25/2018, with liberty being given to the appellant to approach the appropriate Court in an appropriate manner. 7. After the respondents had entered appearance in the said case and objections had been raised by the respondents on the maintainability of the Heirship Application, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip, vide Order dated 07.06.2018, dismissed Heirship Application No. 25/2018, with liberty being given to the appellant to approach the appropriate Court in an appropriate manner. 7. Consequent to the Order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip in Heirship Application No. 25/2018, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 6/2018, praying for a declaration that the appellant be declared the legal and rightful owner of the properties covered by LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016 along with the Vertical Band Saw 18” and to issue Heirship Certificate in respect of the same. 8. The respondents thereafter filed their written statement-cum-counter claim in terms of Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC. After the evidence of the parties was recorded by the learned Trial Court, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 01.11.2019 and Decree dated 01.11.2019 was passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 6/2018, by declaring the respondent No. 3 as the legal heir of the deceased F. Laltanpuia, in respect of the landed property covered by LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016 and the Vertical Band Saw 18”. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present Regular First Appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s father looked after the appellant’s grand-father till his death and as such, the appellant’s father, who was the youngest sibling amongst all the children of F. Laltanpuia, is to inherit the property of F. Laltanpuia, in terms of the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014 (herein after referred to as the ‘2014 Act’). He also submits that the evidence of all the respondents, except for the evidence of respondent No. 2, would show that they had all stated that they did not have any claim, with regard to the suit land and property of their father, the late F. Laltanpuia. Further, the respondents had all made a document, which was exhibited in the learned Trial Court as Ext-D (ii), which stated that the respondents had decided that the respondent No. 3 should be declared the legal heir of F. Laltanpuia, for inheriting the property left behind by their father, the late F. Laltanpuia. 11. Further, the respondents had all made a document, which was exhibited in the learned Trial Court as Ext-D (ii), which stated that the respondents had decided that the respondent No. 3 should be declared the legal heir of F. Laltanpuia, for inheriting the property left behind by their father, the late F. Laltanpuia. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the respondent No. 3, in his evidence had clearly stated that he did not make any claim, with regard to the suit land/property before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court could not have declared the respondent No. 3 as the legal heir in respect of the properties left behind by the late F. Laltanpuia. The appellant’s counsel thus submits that the impugned Judgment & Order/Decree should be set aside and the appellant should be declared as the legal heir in respect of LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016 and the Vertical Band Saw 18”. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant’s father, F. Lalsangkima did not inherit the ancestral property or the Vertical Band Saw 18” at the time of death of their father, F. Laltanpuia, i.e., on 27.11.2010. As such, the properties left behind by the late F. Laltanpuia would have to be given to the remaining surviving children of the late F. Laltanpuia. As the respondents had decided that the properties should be inherited by the respondent No. 3, who was one of the sons of F. Laltanpuia, the learned Trial Court did not commit any infirmity in declaring the respondent No. 3 to be the legal heir of the deceased F. Laltanpuia, in respect of the suit properties. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Vertical Band Saw 18” was to be given to F. Laltanpuia as a beneficiary under the NLUP Scheme undertaken by the Government of Mizoram. However, the same was received by the appellant’s father, as F. Laltanpuia had expired in the meantime. The respondents’ counsel submits that the Vertical Band Saw 18” being the property of F. Laltanpuia, the same would have to be inherited by the respondent No. 3, as he was the youngest surviving child of F. Laltanpuia. 14. However, the same was received by the appellant’s father, as F. Laltanpuia had expired in the meantime. The respondents’ counsel submits that the Vertical Band Saw 18” being the property of F. Laltanpuia, the same would have to be inherited by the respondent No. 3, as he was the youngest surviving child of F. Laltanpuia. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the evidence given by the respondent No. 5, in paragraph No. 4 of his examination-in-chief given by way of affidavit, implies that the respondent No. 3 was looking after and supporting the appellant’s father, F. Lalsangkima. As such, there was no infirmity in the learned Trial Court declaring the respondent No. 3 as the legal heir of the suit property. He also submits that as one of the main source of income of the respondent No. 3 is the Vertical Band Saw 18”, the Vertical Band Saw 18” was rightly to be inherited by the respondent No. 3. 15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the respondent No. 3 has taken a stand that the Vertical Band Saw 18” is one of his main source of income, the appellant does not have any objection if the Vertical Band Saw 18” is inherited by the respondent No. 3. 16. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 17. This Court finds that one of the issues which was to be decided, is as to whether the appellant’s father inherited the suit property at the time of the death of the appellant’s grand-father on 27.11.2010. The further question is with regard to whether the appellant’s father or the respondents would have inherited the suit property, in terms of the Mizo Customary Law or the 2014 Act, inasmuch as, the 2014 Act came into effect only on 13.02.2015, while the appellant’s grand-father expired on 27.11.2010. The other issue that has also to be decided, is as to whether the appellant’s father or the respondents had supported F. Laltanpuia till his death. These issues were never considered by the learned Trial Court. 18. The above being said, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues, which are as follows:- “(1) Whether F. Lalsangkima (L) along with his wife and son had separately stayed by way of ‘indang’ at the time of the death of L. Laltanpuia? These issues were never considered by the learned Trial Court. 18. The above being said, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court had framed the following issues, which are as follows:- “(1) Whether F. Lalsangkima (L) along with his wife and son had separately stayed by way of ‘indang’ at the time of the death of L. Laltanpuia? (2) Whether F. Lalsangkima (L) along with his wife and son were the ones who had supported/looked after the deceased F. Laltanpuia till his death as desired by their father who is the owner of the specified properties in the instant suit? (3) Whether the plaintiff had supported/lived with the deceased F. Laltanpuia will his untimely death on 27.11.2010? (4) Whether the rest of F. Lalsangkima’s siblings have separately stayed with their respective families by way of ‘indang’? (5) Whether the defendant No. 3 is entitled to the relief claimed by him in the instant Counter-Claim? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, if so, to what extent?” 19. The meaning of the word ‘Indang’ would have to be first clarified by this Court, so that the issues could be understood in the proper prospective. The meaning of the word ‘Indang’ would loosely translate into a person who has left the ancestral or parental home and established a separate household, away from the ancestral/parental home. 20. The learned Trial Court decided issue No. 1 by holding that the appellant’s father, on being married, had left the ancestral property. However, when the appellant’s parents separated in the year 2007, the appellant’s father re-joined the appellant’s grand-father, F. Laltanpuia, in the ancestral home, without the appellant and his mother. With regard to issue No. 2, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that there is nothing to show in the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court that the appellant or his mother ever supported or looked after the late F. Laltanpuia during his life time. However, the learned Trial Court has not made any finding or observation with regard to whether the appellant’s father had looked after F. Laltanpuia. With regard to issue No. 3, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant never lived with his grand-father during his life time. However, the learned Trial Court has not made any finding or observation with regard to whether the appellant’s father had looked after F. Laltanpuia. With regard to issue No. 3, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant never lived with his grand-father during his life time. With regard to issue No. 4, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that all the respondents lived separately with their respective families as ‘Indang’, at the time of death of the late F. Laltanpuia. With regard to issue Nos. 5 & 6, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant was not entitled to be given Heirship Certificate, in terms of Section 31 (3) of the 2014 Act. 21. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that as the respondent No. 3 was living with the appellant’s father, at the time of the death of the appellant’s father, the respondent No. 3, as a brother of the appellant’s father, would be entitled to inherit the properties left behind by their father, the late F. Laltanpuia. Further, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that since there was no evidence to show that the appellant’s father had acquired or inherited the suit property, the appellant had no property to inherit from his father. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3, being the youngest surviving son of the deceased F. Laltanpuia, after the death of the appellant’s father, the suit property was to be inherited by the respondent No. 3. 22. On considering the findings of the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court did not apply its mind to the basic issue, i.e., whether inheritance of property would automatically start to flow to the legal heir(s), on the date of death of the property owner, i.e., the late F. Laltanpuia. 23. Section 31 (1)(2)(3) and Section 33 of the 2014 Act are reproduced below:- “31. In the absence of a 'Will,' the following provision shall apply: (1) On the death of the head of the family, the wife will automatically become the head of the family if she remains a chaste widow and looks after the welfare of her minor children. If the children have become majors, she needs to obtain no objection from the children to recognize her as the head of the family. If the children have become majors, she needs to obtain no objection from the children to recognize her as the head of the family. (2) The property left by the deceased father will be inherited by the sons who are not ‘Indang' and the surviving wife of the head of the family equally. However, the youngest son will get one extra share provided he looks after members of the family who are not 'Indang'. Provided further that unmarried daughter who has been looking after her parents and siblings being the main bread earner will also get a share of the property equivalent to the right of the mother/sons. (3) If any of the son ‘A’ of the Head of the Family dies before the head of the family, then on the death of the head of the family, the head of the family's properties will be divided between the surviving sons of the head of the family who are not 'Indang' and the surviving wife and the share that would have gone to ‘A’ would go to A's sons. Provided that the youngest son will get one extra share. Provided further that ‘A’ was not ‘Indang' or that the children of ‘A’ were not 'Indang' at the time of the death of the head of the family. 33. Inheritance for support till death: The one who supports the owner of specified property till his/her death as desired by the owner of that property, is entitled to first preference to inheritance of that property irrespective of the order of preference given in Section 31 and 32”. 24. A reading of Section 31 (3) of the 2014 Act shows that the said provision would only be applicable if one of the sons, who was living in the ancestral house died before the death of the Head of the family. In the present case, the Head of the family, i.e., F. Laltanpuia pre-deceased all his children, including the appellant’s father. As such, Section 31 (3) of the 2014 Act cannot be applied to the facts of this case. However, Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act is applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act comes into play when the Head of the family pre-deceases all his sons and daughters. As such, Section 31 (3) of the 2014 Act cannot be applied to the facts of this case. However, Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act is applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act comes into play when the Head of the family pre-deceases all his sons and daughters. As per Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act, the property left behind by the deceased father (Head of the family) would be inherited by the sons, who are not ‘Indang’ and the surviving wife of the Head of the family, in equal shares. The youngest son would however get one extra share. 25. In the present case, only the appellant’s father, who was also the youngest son, was not ‘Indang’ at the time of death of the Head of the family, i.e., F. Laltanpuia on 27.11.2010. As the wife of the Head of the family had expired a long time back, the inheritance of the suit property would have to devolve upon the appellant’s father, in terms of Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act. Further, the evidence of the appellant and his witness, which was not denied by the respondents in their cross-examination, shows that the appellant’s father had looked after and supported F. Laltanpuia. 26. Though the learned Trial Court had come to a finding that there was no evidence to show that the suit property was inherited by the appellant’s father from F. Laltanpuia, it has to be kept in mind that inheritance under the Mizo Customary Law or the 2014 Act would start to flow automatically with the death of the property holder. Inheritance or title to a property or properties of a person, would not stand or hang on his death and inheritance to the suit property would start to devolve automatically as per the law of inheritance applicable, at the time of the death of the property holder. 27. As such, when F. Laltanpuia expired on 27.11.2010, the inheritance to the properties of F. Laltanpuia would immediately start to devolve upon the legal heir(s), in terms of the law of inheritance applicable at the relevant time. As per Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act, the appellant’s father, being the only son, who was not ‘Indang’, the suit property would have devolved automatically upon the appellant’s father. As per Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act, the appellant’s father, being the only son, who was not ‘Indang’, the suit property would have devolved automatically upon the appellant’s father. The issuance of an Heirship Certificate is basically a formal recognition by the Court of the devolution of property to the legal heir(s) by way of inheritance, as per the law in force. However, one question that has arisen is as to whether the 2014 Act would be applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the Head of the family, i.e., F. Laltanpuia expired on 27.11.2010, i.e., before the coming into force of the 2014 Act. At the time of the death of F. Laltanpuia, the inheritance of property was governed by the Mizo Customary Law, which is protected under Article 371 G of the Constitution. 28. As per the Mizo Customary Law, a man’s direct heirs are his sons. In the case of more than one son, the younger son inherits the properties of his father because he is expected to support his aged parents. The younger son cannot inherit all the properties merely because he is the youngest son, unless he supports his aged parents till death. In the case of a rich parent and if there are more than one son, the property may be shared amongst all the sons, with the younger son getting an additional share. 29. In the case of Kaithuami (L) through LRS Vs. Ralliani & Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 512, the Apex Court has concurred with the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thansiami Vs. Lalruatkima & Others, reported in 2012 2 GLR 309, wherein it has been held that inheritance under the Mizo Customary Law depends upon the question as to whether a person supports the deceased in his old age or not. If a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance. 30. On a perusal of the evidence adduced by the respondents, this Court finds that the respondents have nowhere stated that they have/had supported F. Laltanpuia during his old age and till his death. In fact, all the respondents were having their own families and living in their separate households. None of them were living in the ancestral property except for the appellant’s father, F. Lalsangkima. In fact, all the respondents were having their own families and living in their separate households. None of them were living in the ancestral property except for the appellant’s father, F. Lalsangkima. The evidence given by the appellant and the appellant’s witness, H. Lalhmangaihzuali is to the effect that the appellant’s father was looking after and supporting F. Laltanpuia till his death. As F. Lalsangkima was looking after and supporting his father, F. Laltanpuia till his death and as inheritance or entitlement to the properties of a person, starts to flow automatically with the death of the property holder and rests on the person who is the legal heir, this Court finds that the inheritance of the suit property would have rested/vested immediately upon F. Lalsangkima, i.e., the appellant’s father, on the death of F. Laltanpuia on 27.11.2010. 31. In view of the inheritance of the suit property devolving upon the appellant’s father on the date of death of the appellant’s grand-father, F. Laltanpuia, the suit property, i.e., the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD- 606301/01/228 of 2016 would automatically devolve upon the appellant from F. Lalsangkima, unless the appellant has some other sibling, which is not known to the Court as on date. 32. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in declaring the respondent No. 3 to be the legal heir of F. Laltanpuia, in respect of the land covered by LSC No. CAD- 606301/01/228 of 2016 and the Vertical Band Saw 18”. The learned Trial Court should have taken into consideration the fact that inheritance of the suit property, would have to be considered between the appellant’s father and his other siblings, i.e., the respondents, at the time of death of F. Laltanpuia. As this Court has held that F. Lalsangkima was the legal heir, by natural devolution of the inheritance process as per the Mizo Customary Law and as per Section 31 (2) of the 2014 Act, the appellant’s father has to be deemed to inherit the properties of the late F. Laltanpuia. Consequently, the appellant who is the legal heir of F. Lalsangkima, on the death of F. Lalsangkima on 25.03.2018, would inherit the properties of his father. Consequently, the appellant who is the legal heir of F. Lalsangkima, on the death of F. Lalsangkima on 25.03.2018, would inherit the properties of his father. This Court accordingly declares the appellant to be the legal heir of F. Lalsangkima, in respect of the land and building covered by LSC No. CAD-606301/01/228 of 2016. However, as the appellant’s counsel has submitted that the appellant will have no objection if the Vertical Band Saw 18” is inherited by the respondent No. 3, the said Vertical Band Saw 18” will be inherited by the respondent No. 3. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 01.11.2019 and Decree dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip in Civil Suit No. 6/2018 is hereby set aside. 33. Decree should be made accordingly. 34. Send back the LCR.