Enacted by Sayajirao III of Baroda state, which included these tribal talukas, the law does not recognise a woman's right to parental property. And it is this very aspect that is being exploited for all its worth even today, according to local social workers.

The tales of Babliben Gamit of Jamkhadi village, Deenaben Gamit of Ranpura village and Saruben of Meda village are amazingly similar. Each of them inherited property after the death of her parents. Their respective brothers evicted them; they moved the Vyara Civil Court, only to be told they had no property rights under the Gaekwadi law.

Interestingly enough, the pre-Independence law does not mention tribals at all, let alone purport to cover them. However, because there is no codified law for tribals, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955-56 is invoked to settle tribal disputes -- despite its specification that ``tribals are not Hindus'' -- everywhere but in Vyara, Songadh and part of Uchhal.

J Stanney, director of the Surat-based Legal Aid and Human Rights Centre, which has been carrying out a legal awareness programme among tribals, says, ``We've lodged 25 cases involving such women in the Vyara Civil Court. And we've lost all of them. If the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable to tribals because they aren't Hindu, why invoke the outdated Gaekwadi law?''

Senior advocates admit the law is an anachronism. ``All tribal cases related to divorce, conjugal rights, maintenance and separation are settled under the Hindu Marriage Act. Only when it comes to property are tribal women of this region told they're covered by the Gaekwadi law'', points out an indignant senior advocate and tribal activist Gamji Vasava.

``Several women, who have been done out of their property by this law, have appealed to the High Court. Their cases are still pending'', says advocate Girish Patel.

Earlier this year, the Legal Aid and Human Rights Centre submitted memoranda to the mamlatdars of seven talukas, demanding that the Gaekwadi law be shelved. Copies were also given to local tribals MLAs and MPs, including Raman Chaudhary and Chhitubhai Gamit, but to no avail.

``We wanted them to raise the issue in the Assembly, but did not succeed'', says Stanney.

That may be because some sections still do not consider the law as an anachronism. ``No woman has suffered because of this law'', declares Mandvi MP Chhitubhai Gamit. With its victims not willing to buy that theory, Stanney says he plans to file a public interest litigation ``very soon'' seeking the annulment of the law. ``That's our last hope'', he adds.

And that of scores of tribal women too.