ORDER : Hirdesh, J. Appellants/defendants have filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17-5-2018 passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 7A/2018 by Second Additional District Judge, Alirajpur, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27-1-2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2016 by the first Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alirajpur, filed by the respondents for declaration of title and permanent injunction was decreed. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellants/defendants filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No. 145, raqba 120, survey No. 155, raqba 7.5, survey No. 207, raqba 0.02, survey No. 208, raqba 0.02, survey No. 209, raqba 5.8, survey No. 217, raqba 26.55, total raqba 41.21 hectares new survey No. 2126, 2130, raqba 0.030 hectares, survey No. 2044, raqba 0.910, survey No. 2015, raqba 0.006, survey No. 2048, raqba 0.020 hectare, survey No. 2041, raqba 0.580 hectare, survey No. 1996, raqba 5.700 hectare, total raqba 9.050 hectares (herein after referred to as the suit land recorded in the name of ‘Dhanna’) and Dhanna is the father of Vestibai and Vestibai is the legally wedded wife of Nathu Bhilala and Sekadiya was born out of the wedlock of Nathu and Vestibai. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are the son of Sekadiya and Plaintiff No. 3 is the wife of Sekadiya. After the death of Vestibai, Nathu married to one Sunibai and defendants No. 1 to 5 are the children of Nathu and Sunibai. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the civil suit before the trial Court with respect to the suit property praying for relief of declaration and permanent injunction and pleaded that the suit property belongs to Vestibai and because of the fact that the respondents are the children of Vestibai and the suit property is inherited by them. After the death of Vestibai, the respondents/plaintiffs are possession holders of the suit property. In the month of August, 2013, the appellants/defendants attempted to dispossess the respondents. Thereafter the respondents/plaintiffs retrieved the revenue record and came to know that the names of the appellants are recorded therein and thereafter they filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land against the defendants/appellants. 4. In the month of August, 2013, the appellants/defendants attempted to dispossess the respondents. Thereafter the respondents/plaintiffs retrieved the revenue record and came to know that the names of the appellants are recorded therein and thereafter they filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land against the defendants/appellants. 4. Counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the appellants have filed the written statement and denied the averments and pleadings and had submitted in the written statement that Nathu Bhilala is the husband of Vestibai and his father-in-law having no male issue then Dhanna (sic : Nathu) came to his father-in-law village as a ‘Gharjanwai’ and have further pleaded that in the customary law of Tribes Gharjanwai inherited the rights over his father-in-law’s property after the death of Dhanna, Vestibai and Nathu Bhilala inherited the property of Dhanna as the customary law prevailed in the Tribes community and after the death of Nathu, the said suit property was inherited from the appellants in mutual partition with the consent of late Sekadiya and thereafter the suit property came into the share of appellants. They are in possession of the suit property for the last 45 years and that their names are also recorded in the revenue records and hence prays for dismissal of the respondents/plaintiffs suit. 5. The learned trial Court framed the issue and after recording of evidence of both the parties have admitted the respondents/plaintiffs suit of declaration and title and have passed the judgment and decree in their favour. Thereafter the appellants/defendants had preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree have confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and hence the present second appeal before this Court. 6. Counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are illegal and are not based on the proper appreciation of evidence and the Courts below have committed grave error in disbelieving the evidence of the appellants/defendants. It is further argued that the Courts below have erred in allowing the plaintiffs suit and have ignored the pleadings made by the appellants. It is further argued that the Courts below have erred in allowing the plaintiffs suit and have ignored the pleadings made by the appellants. The findings of the Courts below is perverse and is against the evidence available on record and thus in view of the aforesaid, the second appeal deserves to be admitted by substantial questions of law proposed by the counsel for the appellants. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 8. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have considered the oral and documentary evidence, produced by the parties. The learned trial Court has not found proved that the respondents/plaintiffs are the title holders of the suit land by them after the death of Vestibai and they are the owners of the suit land in question. 9. It is undisputed that in this case both the parties belong to Scheduled Tribes community and as per section 2(2) Hindu Succession Act, 1956, states that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. Hence in view of the above provision, Hindu Succession Act is not applicable in this case. 10. The appellants/defendants have pleaded in their written statement that there is a customary law in the Tribes community that where there is no male issue then the father of daughter kept his son-in-law as ‘Gharjanwai’ but the Courts below has not discussed the evidence in the judgment and decree unless the same is proved by way of leading the evidence. 11. Section 101 and 102 of Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced hereunder for perusal : 101. Burden of proof. — Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 102. On whom burden of proof lies. — The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 12. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 102. On whom burden of proof lies. — The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 12. Hence in view of the above provision of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is the duty of the appellants/defendants to produce the evidence before the Courts below that there is a customary law prevailed in the Tribes community or in the Tribes but the defendants have failed to adduce any evidence in this regard. 13. In view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by dismissing the suit and appeal filed by the appellants/defendants. The concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation and assessment of oral and documentary documents on record and do not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity, warranting interference by this Court. 14. In such circumstances, no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.