J UDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned Counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This Second Appeal is presented against the Judgment & Order dated 19.10.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, in RFA No. 3/2016. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - The respondent/petitioner after the death of her husband on 27.03.2010, applied for issuance of Heirship Certificate before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, (herein after referred to as “the trial Court”) in respect of LSC No. Azl-1549 of 1994, LSC No.674 of 1987, LSC No.671 of 1987, and LSC No. 103302/01/623 of 2008 which was numbered and registered as Heirship Certificate Case No. 467/2010. Upon receipt of the aforesaid application, notice was issued in two local daily newspapers calling for objection. Thereafter, the appellant/respondents jointly submitted objection against the said application, to which the respondent/petitioner submitted written statement along with documents. The trial Court thereafter framed the issue as “whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as the legal heirs in respect of the property left by her husband Mr. Zoramliana Chawngthu”. 4. Upon commencement of the trial, the respondent/petitioner examined herself and another witness and also exhibited 10 documents. Thereafter the appellant/respondents examined themselves and two other witnesses and also exhibited the written objection filed by them, which was marked as Exhibit-D1. The trial Court after closing the evidence and hearing the parties by Judgment & Order dated 03.02.2016 was pleased to grant the Heirship Certificate in respect of the subject land in favour of the respondent/petitioners. Against the aforesaid judgement & order the appellant/respondent filed an appeal under Order 41, read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 as well as section 17(3) of Mizoram Civil Courts Act , 2005. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties by judgment & order dated 19.10.2016 was pleased to dismiss the appeal by affirming the Judgment & Order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the trial Court. 5. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties by judgment & order dated 19.10.2016 was pleased to dismiss the appeal by affirming the Judgment & Order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the trial Court. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment & order of the First Appellate Court, the appellant/respondent preferred the instant second appeal, wherein this Court by Order dated 08.12.2016 while admitting the appeal formulated the substantial questions of law which are as hereunder: - (i) Whether the lower courts committed an error of law by assigning ownership of suit lands to the deceased husband only on the basis of mutation, without examining the legality of the transfer of the suit lands to the deceased husband as per the requirement of law and by wrongly absolving the respondent of the burden of proving the same, thereby erroneously attributing a legal effect of ownership to the LSC certificates. (ii) Whether the trial court committed an error of law by allowing the respondent herein to proceed and base her entire pleading on the document titled a “reply” to a “counter - claim” despite the fact that there had been no counter-claim made and by penalizing the appellants herein for not making any reply to the said document. 6. Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellant/respondents submits that the title and ownership of the respondent/petitioner being objected by the appellant/respondents in the Heirship Certificate case, it was imperative for the trial Court to first determine the ownership of the respondent/petitioner’s husband over the subject land. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalzarliana vs Lalfakawmi in RSA No.5/2015 . He further submits that in a suit for declaration of title and ownership, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove title to the property in question. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Coop Housing Society Ltd. , reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 7. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Coop Housing Society Ltd. , reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 7. He accordingly submits that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. He further submits that the trial Court in the case in hand having relied the record of right, wherein the subject lands are mutated in favour of the respondent/petitioner’s husband to come to the finding that the respondent/petitioner is entitled for Heirship Certificate in respect of the subject lands is totally erroneous and perverse. He further submits that entries in record of rights by themselves does not constitute title. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon paragraph 21 of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Vasavi Coop Housing Society Ltd. (Supra) . He accordingly submits that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court having assigned ownership of the suit lands to the deceased husband of the respondent/petitioner only on the basis of mutation, without examining the legality of the transfer as per requirement of law, the decision of the trial Court and First Appellate Court warrants reversal. He further submits that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court having placed reliance to the ‘reply by the petitioner to the counter-claim made by the respondents’ is totally erroneous in as much as in the absence of counter-claim by the appellant/respondent, there was no occasion for the respondent/petitioner for submitting a reply to a counter- claim and hence, the said pleading is illegal and is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. In support of the aforesaid contention, he relies upon the following decisions: - (i) Nagubai Ammal Vs. B. Shama Rao , reported in AIR 1956 SC 593 (ii) Bank of Baroda Vs. Moti Bhai & Ors , reported in (1985) 1 SCC 475 8. Per Contra, Mr. In support of the aforesaid contention, he relies upon the following decisions: - (i) Nagubai Ammal Vs. B. Shama Rao , reported in AIR 1956 SC 593 (ii) Bank of Baroda Vs. Moti Bhai & Ors , reported in (1985) 1 SCC 475 8. Per Contra, Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned Counsel for the respondent/petitioner submits that there being no pleading with regard to the validity of the mutation in question, the trial Court cannot go beyond what is pleaded before the trial Court and hence, the judgment & order of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court warrants no interference from this Court. He further submits that in the reply filed by the appellant/respondents before the trial Court, there was no objection to the ownership and title of the respondent/petitioner’s husband over the suit. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court. (i) Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. reported in 2012 (8) SCC 148 (ii) Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Anr. reported in 2008 (17) SCC 491 9. He further submits that during the relevant period when the Heirship Certificate case in question was field, the provision of Code of Civil Procedure was applied in spirit only, as per the provision of Section 21 of Mizoram Civil Courts Act , 2005 (now Section 21 amended). He accordingly submits that the said nomenclature will not be of any relevance and the pleadings made therein having not been objected by the appellant/respondent at earlier point of time, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed an error of law. In support of the aforesaid submission, he places reliance on the following decisions: (i) Smt. Kaithuami(L) Tr. Lrs. Vs. Smt. Ralliani decided in Civil Appeal No.7159-7160 of 2008 (ii) C.K. Prahalada & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors , reported in (2008) 15 SCC 577 10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the bar. 11. State of Karnataka & Ors , reported in (2008) 15 SCC 577 10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the bar. 11. I shall first decide the substantial question of law No.1 as whether the lower courts committed an error of law by assigning ownership of suit lands to the deceased husband only on the basis of mutation, without examining the legality of the transfer of the suit lands to the deceased husband as per the requirement of law and by wrongly absolving the respondent of the burden of proving the same, thereby erroneously attributing a legal effect of ownership to the Land Settlement Certificates. 12. In order to decide the said question, the nature of the Heirship Certificate case has to be first examined. 13. Apt to refer to the relevant provision of the earlier enactment i.e.The Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred as the “Act, 1956”) which is applicable in the facts of the instant case. ‘Settlement holder’ is defined under sub-section 8 of Section 2 of the said Act, 1956, which means any person other than a pass holder who has entered into an agreement with the administrator to pay land revenue and is deemed to have acquired status of settlement holder under Section 7 . Section 7 of the said Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “7. Settlement-holder’s right over land :- ‘The settlement-holder shall have heritable and transferable right of use on or sub-letting in his land subject to :- a) the payment of all revenue and taxes from time to time legally assessed or imposed in respect of the land :- b) such terms and conditions as are expressed in his settlement lease, and the rules made thereunder.” 14. Perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the settlement holder shall have heritable and transferable right of use on his land. 15. Section 10 of the said Act provides as hereunder: “10. Recording and Demarcation of land- The Administrator or any officers appointed in its behalf survey all lands to be recorded. The demarcated boundary and the assessed revenue to be paid annually shall be recorded in the General vide Appendix ’A’. 15. Section 10 of the said Act provides as hereunder: “10. Recording and Demarcation of land- The Administrator or any officers appointed in its behalf survey all lands to be recorded. The demarcated boundary and the assessed revenue to be paid annually shall be recorded in the General vide Appendix ’A’. The Administrator may prescribed subject to a paragraph 8 (1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and to this Regulation principles on which the land revenue is to be assessed, the terms for which and the conditions on which settlement may be made. The settlement-holder shall make proper boundary marks as may be directed by such officers or the Administrator. Recording shall made in such manner and after such inquiry as may be prescribed.” 16. Section 11 of the said Act provides as hereunder: “11. Certificate of possession and assessment:- A settlement-holder shall, on the completion of survey and demarcation of boundary, obtain a certificate of recording for the details of that land on payment of such amount of recording fee as may be prescribed. Different rates of fees may be prescribed for any local area of class of land.” 17. Section 12 of the said Act provides as hereunder: “12. Local ownership over land-- Possession of such certificates showing details of boundary area and assessed revenue to be paid annually shall be deemed to be the conclusive proof that the land has been settled with the holder of the certificate and that all rights and interests arising out of such settlement have vested in such holder of the certificate.”. 18. Section 14 of the said Act provides as hereunder: “14. Transfer of ownership of Land:-- No transfer of any right, title or interest in any land shall be recognized by the Administrator or the Village Council and no person shall be deemed to be exoperated from any liability due to the Administrator or the Village Council by virtue of such transfer, unless such transfer is registered in the office of the Administrator in the manner prescribed.” 19. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is apparent that a settlement holder is required to obtain a certificate of possession and the possession of such certificate is deemed to be the conclusive proof under Section 12 of the said Act that the land has been settled with the holder of the certificate and that all rights and interest arising out of such settlement have vested in such holder of the certificate. It further appears that in case of transfer of ownership of land, unless, the same is registered in the office of the Administrator in the stipulated manner, the same shall not be recognized by the Administrator of the Village Council. Therefore, until and unless the Land Settlement Certificate is annulled or cancelled in accordance with law or is interfered by an appropriate Court of law, the same indicates that the holder of the said certificate is deemed conclusively to be the owner of such land. 20. Apt at this juncture to refer to The Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1967”). Sub-rule 4 of Rule-2 of the said Rules, 1967 defines ‘land settlement’ as the settling of land under the Act and under these Rules either permanently or periodically with individual persons or society who have entered into an agreement with the District Council to pay land revenue, and includes survey, demarcation of boundary and classification preliminary to such settlement. Sub-rule 5 of Rule-2 of the said Rules, 1967 defines ‘permanent settlement’ as the settling of land under the Act and under these Rules permanently with an individual person or society who have entered into an agreement with the District Council to pay land revenue and to whom a certificate of land settlement as prescribed in Appendix- ‘A’ is issued, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “Appendix- ‘A’ CERTIFICATE OF LAND CERTIFICATE OF LAND-SETTLEMENT ( Section 11 of the Mizo District Land and Revenue Act, 1956) No………………………. of 19……… This Certificate, settling the land prescribed hereunder as recorded in the General Register, is granted under Section 11 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue Act, 1956), to: - Name: Father’s Name: Address: Serial No. Grade No. Area in Bigha Rate per Bigha Revenue payable per annum Description of Boundary with location: - The holder of this certificate has entered into an agreement with the District Council to pay land-revenue as shown above and thereby acquired the status of settlement-holder under Section 7 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue Act, 1956) as amended. He is vested with the legal ownership of the land including all rights and interests arising out of such settlement subject to the Act, Rules, Terms and conditions made and amended by the District Council from time to time. Signature of Issuing Officer.” 21. Rules 5, 6 & 7 of the said Rules are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “5. Application for Land-Settlement Application for Land-Settlement shall be in writing and presented to the Executive Member-in-charge, Land Settlement or to the Officer appointed in this behalf. If the Executive Committee orders under Rule 3, and land-pass or permit to be settled, no such written application will be necessary. 6. Survey, Measurement and Demarcation of Land: On receipt of an application, the Executive Member or the Officer shall cause the land to be surveyed, measured and demarcated, unless he sees reasons to reject the application summarily. A sketch-map showing the length and breadth in feet, the area of the land in square feet and in bighas and the boundary description of the land shall be made in the survey and submitted. The Executive Member or Officer shall also ascertain whether the land applied is available for settlement and free from encumbrances. The Executive Committee may order summary survey, if deemed necessary for settlement subject to revision. In such case, the Executive Committee may prescribed in writing the manner for such summary survey. 7 . Disposal of Application: After receiving the survey report and making further investigation as may be necessary and settling any dispute that may have arisen, the Executive Member or the Officer shall either grant settlement or reject the application or allow it in part as he deems fit, When land-settlement granted registration and issuing of Certificate of land shall be done under Rule 21 and 22.” 22. Rule 21, 22 and 25 is also extracted hereunder for ready reference: “21. Registration: When any settlement is granted under Rules 7, 14 and 15 of the Rules, the same shall be entered in the General Register on payment of Rs. 10/- as registration fee and such payments as redemption and any other necessary payments, if any. The Executive Committee may revise the arte of registration fee from time to time. No settlement shall be registered unless the holder pays off all such necessary payments and fixes all the boundary pillars as necessary. 22. Issue of Certificates of Land-Settlement, Land- Lease and Periodic Lease of Fishery On completion of Registration, a Certificate of Land- Settlement, Land-Lease or Periodic Lease of Fishery, as the case may be, which serves as a Certificate of Registration, shall be issued to the settlement-holder on the lessee on payment of Rs.5/- for the certificate in addition to the registration fee. 25. Transfer of Land If a settlement- holder or a lessee wants to transfer his land partly or wholly to another person or body, he shall apply for the same, and, if, nothing is found against his doing so in the terms and conditions of his certificate, the same shall be effected in the register and in the certificate on payment of mutation fee of Rs. 10/-. If the transfer of land is in part, and requires new certificate, the person to whom the new certificate is to be issued, shall pay registration fee of Rs. 10/- and certificate fee of Rs. 5/- under Rules 21 and 22 in addition to the mutation fee paid by the former settlement-holder. In the case of transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal and from a non-Tribal to another non-Tribal, the relevant provision of the Mizo District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1963, shall apply in addition to the fees payable under this Rule.” 23. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is further apparent that a certificate of land settlement is issued to the settlement holder upon an application for such land settlement is presented before the authority concerned. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is further apparent that a certificate of land settlement is issued to the settlement holder upon an application for such land settlement is presented before the authority concerned. It is further apparent that upon receipt of such application, the land in question is to be surveyed, measured and demarcated and thereafter upon ascertaining whether the land applied is available for settlement and free from encumbrances, a survey report is prepared and after receiving such survey report and making such further investigation as necessary the executive committee is empowered to grant settlement or reject as the case may be. It is only when such settlement is granted under Rule 7, the same shall be entered in the general register in the manner stipulated in Rule 21 and upon completion of registration, the Land Settlement Certificate is issued to the settlement holder. Thus, once the Land Settlement Certificate is issued, it is deemed to be conclusive proof that the settlement holder is the rightful owner of the said land. 24. Reference is made to paragraph 28 of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hmingthankima and Anr. Vs Sapbela and Ors ., reported in 2024 (2) GLT 469 : (2024) 3 GLR 803 : 2024 (2) GLJ (NOC) 456, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “28. As such, under the provisions of the said Act, land is settled with person by issuing Land Settlement Certificate which is required to be recorded as per Chapter-III of the said Act. The procedure of registration of such settlement is provided under Rule 21 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Rules, 1965. A reading of the aforesaid provisions abundantly clarifies that ownership, right, title or interest over any land, can be recognized only after such transfer is registered in the office of the Administrator in manner prescribed under the provisions of the said Act and Rules as quoted herein above. Section 12 mandates that possession of such certificates and annual payment of the assessed revenue shall be deemed to be conclusive proof that the land is settled with the holder of the certificate. Section 14 further mandates that no transfer of any right, title, or interest in any land shall be recognized by the Administrator or the village council unless such transfer is registered in the office of the Administrator. Section 14 further mandates that no transfer of any right, title, or interest in any land shall be recognized by the Administrator or the village council unless such transfer is registered in the office of the Administrator. In fact, before issuance of such certificate under the said Act, a detailed survey and investigation is required to be done by the authorities concerned under Chapter-II of the Settlement Rules.” 25. Thus, the Land Settlement Certificate being hereditary, upon the death of the settlement holder, the surviving heir of such deceased settlement holder shall have to apply for Heirship Certificate in order to inherit the Land Settlement Certificate in respect of the subject land. Hence, before such proceedings, the right of inheritance to the Land Settlement Certificate that has to be passed down after the death of the settlement holder is what is to be decided. Pertinent that, the right to inherit the Land Settlement Certificate of the deceased settlement holder is to be decided in accordance with the applicable inheritance law. In the present case, the respondent/petitioner, after her husband’s death applied before the trial Court for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the subject land left by her husband. A copy of the said application dated 01.09.2010 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “To, The Magistrate/Judicial Officer Subordinate District Council Court Aizawl District, Aizawl: Mizoram Subject: Application for Heirship Certificate Madam/Sir, I will be highly grateful if you grant my request. My husband passed away on the 23rd March of 2010. I will be very grateful if you grant me a heirship certificate so that I can continue with the legal ownership of the LSC mentioned below left by my husband. i) LSC No. AZL-671 of 1987, 0.16 bigha/219.96sq.m. Location: Valvakawn Alzawl ii) LSC No. AZL-674 of 1987, 0.54 bigha/730.00sq.m. Location: Vaivakawn, Aizawl iii) LSC No. AZL103302/01/623 of 2008, 0.07 bigha/97.62 sq.m. Location: Chanmari West, Aizawl. All the necessary documents with regards to this matter have been attached. Dt.1.9.2010 Yours faithfully (LALHLIMPUII) W/o Zoramliana Chawngthu Tuikual North” 26. It further appears that pursuant to the aforesaid application, the trial Court issued notice calling for objections, if any, for granting Heirship Certificate in favour of the respondent/petitioner in respect to the subject land. It appears that the appellant/respondents submitted an objection on 20.10.2010 before the trial Court requesting inter-alia not to make any changes in the Land Settlement Certificate. It further appears that pursuant to the aforesaid application, the trial Court issued notice calling for objections, if any, for granting Heirship Certificate in favour of the respondent/petitioner in respect to the subject land. It appears that the appellant/respondents submitted an objection on 20.10.2010 before the trial Court requesting inter-alia not to make any changes in the Land Settlement Certificate. The said objection dated 20.10.2010 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “To, The Magistrate/Judicial Officer Subordinate District Council Court Aizawl District, Aizawl Mizoram. Subject: Regarding Heirship Certificate Madam, We kindly beg you to grant our request. Mrs. Lalhlimpuii W/o ZoramlianaChawngthu (L) (S/o C. Kapthanga(L) of Tuikual ’N’) applied for the issuance of Heirship Certificate under the following LSC 1. LSC No. AZL-671 of 1987. 0.16 bigha/219.96sq.m. Location: Tuikual ’C’ Alzawl. (The location is not Tuikual ’C’ but is Vaivakawn) 2. LSC No. AZL-674 of 1987. 0.54 bigha/730.00sq.m. Location: VaivakawnAlzawl. 3. LSC No. AZL-1549 of 1994. 0.08 bigha/116.74sq.m. Location: Tuikual ’C’ Aizawl. 4. LSC No. 103302-633 of 2008. 0.07 bigha/97.62sq.m. Location: Tuikual ’C’ Alzawl. (The location is not Tuikual ’C’ but is Vaivakawn) The abovementioned LSCs are the properties of our parents. We are astonished and unable to understand and accept the fact that the mutation of the LSC has been done without our knowledge and our Sister-in-law is claiming to be heiress over the LSCs. We kindly beg you to grant our request. Also, we kindly request you to give a notice not to make any changes in the LSC or sell the said property. Dated: Aizawl the 20th October 2010. Yours faithfully (C. LALHMACHHUANA) S/O C.Kapthanga (LALDUHAWMI CHAWNGTHU) D/O C. Kapthaga (C.LALTANPUIA) S/O C. Kapthanga (C.LALHMINGMAWII) D/O C. Kapthaga” 27. Reading of the aforesaid objections it appears that the appellant/respondents being the siblings of the husband of the respondent/petitioner expressed astonishment as how the LSCs in question were mutated in favour of the respondent/petitioner’s husband since the subject land is the property of their parents. It further appears that accordingly, they requested the trial Court not to make any changes in the LSC. However, it is apparent that the appellant/respondent has not disputed the subject LSCs in the name of the respondent/petitioner’s husband in respect of the suit land. 28. Against the aforesaid objection, the respondent/petitioner filed a reply which was labelled as “Reply by the petitioner to the counter-claim made by the respondents”. However, it is apparent that the appellant/respondent has not disputed the subject LSCs in the name of the respondent/petitioner’s husband in respect of the suit land. 28. Against the aforesaid objection, the respondent/petitioner filed a reply which was labelled as “Reply by the petitioner to the counter-claim made by the respondents”. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the said reply are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “6. That after the marriage between the petitioner and Zoramliana Chawngthu(L), the father-in-law of the petitioner gifted the said land covered under LSC no.Azl-1549 of 1994 located at Tuikual C to the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu. Before the said LSC No.Azl-1549 of 1994 was issued the said plot of land was covered under LSC No.217 of 1972. Before the said LSC No.1549 of 1994 was issued, when the said land was part of the LSC No.217 of 1972, in the year 1991, Shri C.Kapthanga, father of the petitioner’s husband and the father of the respondents had gifted the portion of the land covered under LSC No.1549 of 1994 and at the same time the respondent no.3 Shri C.Laltanpuia was also gifted a portion of the land. The petitioner and her late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu(L) with their hard earned money started the construction of a building and when some floors were completed, the petitioner and her late husband and family started living in the said building. Shri C.Kapthanga, father-in-law of the petitioner also stayed in the said incomplete building constructed by the petitioner and her late husband way back in the year 1991 and Shri C.Kapthanga had been living with the petitioner and her late husband till his death in the year 1995. In this connection the petitioner states that the petitioner and her late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu took care of Shri C.Kapthanga (L) till his death. 7. That during the life time of the petitioner’s father-in- law, the petitioner’s father-in-law Shri C.Kapthanga gifted a plot of land covered under LSC No.674 of 1987 to the respondent no.2 Smt. Lalduhawmi Chawngthu. In this connection the petitioner states that the petitioner and her late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu took care of Shri C.Kapthanga (L) till his death. 7. That during the life time of the petitioner’s father-in- law, the petitioner’s father-in-law Shri C.Kapthanga gifted a plot of land covered under LSC No.674 of 1987 to the respondent no.2 Smt. Lalduhawmi Chawngthu. She had mortgaged the said LSC to Shri Zothansanga Tochhawng and as she could not redeem the said land and building covered under LSC No.674 of 1987, the petitioner’s late husband availed loan from his brother-in-law Shri Lalsangliana and paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and redeemed the said land and building and thereafter with the consent and knowledge the respondent no.2, the said LSC was transferred in the name of the petitioner’s late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu. 8. That as the said respondent no.2 lost her land covered under LSC No.674 of 1987, the petitioner’s husband gifted the land covered under LSC no.496 of 1973, which the petitioner’s husband inherited from his late father C.Kapthanga. The said LSC was also already handed over to the respondent no.2 Smt.Lalduhawmi Chawngthu. The petitioner and her late husband took pity on the respondent no.2 Smt. Lalduhawmi and cleared her debts of Rs.1,08,017/- to Holy Cross Traders, and her debt of Rs.55,000 to Shri Lalngengpuia, and a her debt of Rs. 16,569/- to K.B.Furniture. 9. That the land covered under LSC no.671 of 1987 was in the name of Respondent no.1, Shri Lalhmachhuana, he was trying to sell the said plot of land. However, the respondent no.2, Smt. Lalduhawmi needed some money and she borrowed certain sum of money from MUCO Bank Ltd, Aizawl and she had mortgaged the said immovable property covered under LSC no.671 of 1987. As the respondent no.2, Smt. Lalduhawmi could not redeem the land, the petitioner and her husband paid a sum of Rs.77,887/- and redeemed the said land. After the said land was redeemed from the mortgagee, the petitioner and her husband paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no.1, Shri Lalhmachhauana as the cost of the said land and purchased the same, after it was purchased the said plot of land was put in the name of the petitioner’s late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu. After the said land was redeemed from the mortgagee, the petitioner and her husband paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent no.1, Shri Lalhmachhauana as the cost of the said land and purchased the same, after it was purchased the said plot of land was put in the name of the petitioner’s late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu. All the paying slip in respect of the payment made by the petitioner and her late husband towards the loan availed by the respondent no.2, Smt. Lalduhawmi is not available as the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu had misplaced it. 10. That the land covered under LSC no.103302/623 of 2008 was sliced out from the land covered under LSC no.673 of 1987 belonging to the respondent no.3, Shri C.Laltanpuia. The respondent no.3, Shri C.Laltanpuia sold the said land covered under LSC no.673 of 1987 to Shri K. Lalrinmuana and the other LSC covered under LSC No. 103302/623 of 2008 was sold to the petitioner and her late husband and the petitioner and her late husband had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost of the said land covered under the LSC No. 103302/623 of 2008 and thereafter the said plot of land was put in the name of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu. 11. That all the properties for which Heirship Certificate was applied by the petitioner belonged to the petitioner’s late husband Zoramliana Chawngthu. At the time of the death of the petitioner’s husband, all the immovable properties covered under LSC no.671 of 1987, LSC No.674 of 1987, LSC No. 1549 of 1994 and LSC No. 103302/623 of 2008 were in the name of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu. The legal heirs of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu are his wife and his children especially his son C. Zoremmawia, the respondents are the brothers and sisters of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu and they cannot have any right to the properties left by the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu. The all the immovable properties except the one covered under LSC No.1549 of 1994 were all earned by the petitioner and her late husband. The immovable property covered under LSC no.1549 of 1994 was gifted by C.Kapthanga(L), father of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu. The all the immovable properties except the one covered under LSC No.1549 of 1994 were all earned by the petitioner and her late husband. The immovable property covered under LSC no.1549 of 1994 was gifted by C.Kapthanga(L), father of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu. The fact that none of the respondents made any complaint when the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu and the petitioner constructed the 6 storied building the said land proves beyond doubt that the said property is the property of the petitioner’s late husband. Further, during the life time of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu, none of the respondent made any claim to the said properties mentioned in the schedule below as all the properties were purchased by the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu and the petitioner and as mentioned above one of the properties was gifted by the father of the deceased ZoramlianaChawngthu. 12. That as the son of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu, C. Zoremmawia is a minor, his mother applied for heirship certificate on behalf of herself and her son. The petitioner’s son being a necessary party in the case he should be added as petitioner along with the present petitioner and the present petitioner be made as next friend/guardian for the said C.Zoremmawia. 13. That as per the land laws in Mizoram once the land is recorded in the name of an individual as per the provisions of Land and Revenue Acts and Rules, the person whose name the land is settled is the rightful and owner of the land. By virtue of the LSCs referred in the schedule below, the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu was the rightful owner of the said immovable properties. Hence the claim made by the respondent to the properties which are settled in the name of the deceased Zoramliana Chawngthu is mischievous and illegal.” 29. Accordingly, the trial Court framed the issue as whether the respondent/petitioner is entitled to be declared as the legal heir in respect of the LSCs in question. The respondent/petitioner thereafter adduced herself as PW-1 wherein she proved the contents of the said reply affidavit. 30. On the other hand, the appellant/respondents did not submit any written statement apart from the objection, which they exhibited as Exhibit-D1. The respondent/petitioner thereafter adduced herself as PW-1 wherein she proved the contents of the said reply affidavit. 30. On the other hand, the appellant/respondents did not submit any written statement apart from the objection, which they exhibited as Exhibit-D1. It further appears that though the appellant/respondents during evidence as defendant witnesses deposed that their father never gave his LSC No. 1549 of 1994 to the respondent/petitioner’s husband and that the respondent/petitioner has changed the owner’s name on the LSCs in question, however, during cross-examination, they admitted that whatever they have stated in their examination-in-chief was not mentioned in Exhibit-D1. It further appears that during cross-examination of C. Lalhmachhuana/DW-2 i.e. appellant/respondent No.1, he admitted that at the time of the death of the respondent/petitioner’s husband i.e. Zoramliana Chawngthu, all the suit properties were in the name of the respondent/petitioner’s husband. It further appears that the said defendant witness has also admitted during cross-examination that he has not submitted any complaint to the Revenue Department against the mutation in respect of the suit property in the name of the respondent/petitioner’s husband. It further appears that the issue before the trial Court was whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as the legal heir in respect of the suit property. In this regard as stated above, possession of Land Settlement Certificate is deemed to be a conclusive proof of ownership of the land by the settlement holder. The said Land Settlement Certificate being hereditary, upon the death of the settlement holder, Heirship Certificate application is filed. In such Heirship Certificate cases the issue that arises for adjudication is as to whether the person applying for the Heirship Certificate is the legal heir of the land settlement holder or not. Thus, this is not a suit for declaration of title and possession. It only decides the right of inheritance/legal heir of the deceased settlement holder. In order to grant the Heirship Certificate as applied for, notice is issued so as to give opportunity to other legal heirs, if any, to contest such grant of Heirship Certificate. In the case in hand, it is admitted that the Land Settlement Certificate in question over the suit land were in the name of the respondent/petitioner’s husband at the time of his demise. It further appears that the respondent/petitioner has also exhibited the Land Settlement Certificates in question, wherein her husband is recorded as the settlement holder. In the case in hand, it is admitted that the Land Settlement Certificate in question over the suit land were in the name of the respondent/petitioner’s husband at the time of his demise. It further appears that the respondent/petitioner has also exhibited the Land Settlement Certificates in question, wherein her husband is recorded as the settlement holder. It is also admitted position that the respondent/petitioner is the legally married wife of the said settlement holder and has minor children. In a case of such nature, the possession of the Land Settlement Certificate itself is deemed to be the conclusive proof that the said holder is the owner of the land in question. Thus, it is not necessary for the trial Court to determine the ownership of the settlement holder over the suit land in Heirship Certificate case. Pertinent also, that the appellant/respondents have not challenged the ownership of the respondent/petitioner’s husband over the suit land before any competent Court. In fact, in the Heirship Certificate case also, the appellant/respondents have not challenged the LSCs in question in their pleading. Be that as it may, as a corollary to the above discussion, it is clear that even if the appellant/respondents would have challenged the LSCs in question in the Heirship Certificate case, the Court could not have gone into the same inasmuch as such challenge has to be made before a competent Court and the possession of the LSC itself in the Heirship Certificate case is sufficient and conclusive proof to presume ownership of the settlement holder. That being so, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court was correct in attributing legal effect of ownership to the deceased husband of the respondent/petitioner in respect of the LSCs in question in the Heirship Certificate case. The first substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellant/respondents. 31. This brings me to the second substantial question of law as regards the reliance of the trial Court to the reply filed by the respondent/petitioner with the label “reply to a counter-claim”, despite the fact that there has been no counter-claim. On the face of it, the issue appears to be technical in nature. In fact, it appears that pursuant to the objection i.e. Exhbit-D1 being filed by the appellant/respondent, the respondent/petitioner filed the said reply. Technically speaking, the nomenclature/label is not correct. On the face of it, the issue appears to be technical in nature. In fact, it appears that pursuant to the objection i.e. Exhbit-D1 being filed by the appellant/respondent, the respondent/petitioner filed the said reply. Technically speaking, the nomenclature/label is not correct. However, no objection whatsoever was taken at that stage by the appellant/respondent. In fact, the said reply was taken on record by the trial Court pursuant to which evidence was adduced by the respondent/petitioner in support of the averments made in the reply and the appellant/respondent cross-examined the prosecution witness. Hence, no prejudice whatsoever is caused. Non- mentioning of the correct nomenclature in a pleading of the party, which being accepted by the trial Court without any objection by the other side cannot be objected at the appellate stage. While deciding any litigation, the Court has to consider the entire case in its proper perspective including the pleadings, the points argued, the reliefs claimed etc. The Court is never expected to be guided by mere “label” or “nomenclature” of the plaint/written statement/reply etc. In fact, at times, such label/nomenclature may be due to mistake or inadvertence. Therefore, the party cannot be penalized for the same. The Court of law has to do substantive justice to the party and not to misled by technicalities. It is settled law that even if at times the nomenclature is incorrect like where it is not mentioned specifically whether the petitioner is under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to consider properly, depending upon the reliefs sought thereunder and accordingly grant or reject such petitions. In other words, merely because a wrong provision of statute is quoted in the petition or the suit, the Court cannot dismiss the same. Pertinent that during the time of filing the Heirship Certificate case, the provision of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 were applied in spirit only as per the provision of Section 21 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act , 2005. Therefore, merely because the respondent/petitioner has labeled the reply as “reply to the counter-claim” while filing the same, it will not abridge the power of the Court to do substantial justice. Hence, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the respondent/petitioner. 32. In view of the above, the Second Appeal is bereft of any merit whatsoever and hence stands dismissed. 33. Hence, the second substantial question of law is also answered in favour of the respondent/petitioner. 32. In view of the above, the Second Appeal is bereft of any merit whatsoever and hence stands dismissed. 33. Return back the Lower Court Record.