A custom of adoption can be valid among Muslims if it is ancient, reasonable, and proved by a series of well-known concordant and on the whole continuous instances.

1. :- The substantial questions of law springing for consideration in this appeal are as to whether Mohammedan Law permits adoption? If the answer to the question is in the negative, whether any custom recognising the adoption is valid?

2. These questions arise in the circumstances set out below:-

(i) The appellants herein are the legal representatives of Mst. Bivi wife of Shri Gulab Khan and daughter of Shri Mohd. Ali (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) filed an appeal against Shri Sayed Ali, as represented by his legal representatives, joined in the array of the cause title for he too had died during the pendency of the proceedings before the courts below (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), this appeal impugnes the judgment and decree dated June 1, 1990 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City whereby the judgment and decree dated December 17, 1972 of the Munsif Jaipur City (East) were dismissed.

(ii) The defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 are proforma had been impleaded in the suit by the plaintiff on the ground that at the instance of Mst. Bivi (defendant) they were intending to make pakka constructions on a portion of vacant land, a part of the suit property.

(iii) The plaintiff Sayed Ali dawned to be son of first cousin of Mohd. Ali. In order to appreciate the facts it is necessary to refer the pedigree table of the family, which is as under

(iv) The case of plaintiff Sayed Ali was that Mohd. Ali adopted him as per custom prevailing in Mahawatan Muslims of Jaipur. Plaintiff Sayed All initiated proceedings for succession certificate after the death of Mohd. Ali in respect of arrears of his pension amount on December 21, 1949. Mst. Bibi and her sons raised objection against grant of succession certificate on January 5, 1950 and the matter was referred to arbitration. Arbitrator gave award on Feb. 24, 1951 under which share in properties had been given to both the parties. Thereafter the Civil Judge Jaipur City granted succession certificate to Sayed Ali on March 3, 1951.

(v) On Feb. 10, 1965 Mst. Bibi applied for construction of four shops on the land in dispute. Sayed Ali and other plaintiffs also applied for permission on March 3, 1965 but the concerried authority granted permission to Mst. Bibi on March 26, 1965. Sayed Ali preferred appeal against the said permission but it was dismissed on April 8, 1965. Sayed Ali instituted a suit for declaration and possession against Mst. Bibi, Ibrahim Kalan and Ajeem on April 12, 1965. Suit was decreed by Munsif (East) Jaipur City on Feb. 12, 1972 and it was held that plaintiff Sayed Ali was the owner of the property and the construction made during the pendency of suit be demolished. Appeal was preferred against the said decree. The Additional District Judge Jaipur City vide judgment and decree dated December 18, 1972 reversed the decree of the trial court and the plaintiff suit was ordered to be dismissed. Thereafter Sayed Ali filed second appeal No. 18/1973. This court vide judgment dated August 29, 1985 allowed the said appeal and remanded the case to Additional District Judge Jaipur City. This Court in the said judgment observed thus:-

" .. The finding of the first appellate court on the question of factum of adoption being based on misreading of pleadings and absence of consideration of material documentary evidence, cannot be sustained In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1972, passed by the Additional District Judge Jaipur City in civil appeal No. 58 of 1972 is set aside and the first appellate court is directed to re-hear the appeal in the light of the above observations of this court and decide it afresh."

(vi) The additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City vide judgment and decree dated June 1, 1990 after hearing the parties afresh, allowed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated Dec. 17, 1972 passed by the Munsit Jaipur City (East)

(vii) Therefore instant second appeal was preferred by Mst. Bivi.