The Adoptions Act prevails over customary laws, and the court's decision was influenced by the overriding effect of the Adoptions Act on the custom barring adoption.

1. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant seeks permission to withdraw the instant applications.

2. Dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Legal representatives of both the original plaintiffs since deceased are in second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The dispute relates to the estate of Charhta, who was brother of lajja Ram, father of the original plaintiffs. Charhta has no biological issue of his own. Defendant-respondent Sukhbir Singh claims himself to be adopted son of Charhta. The plaintiffs, however, assailed the said adoption being contrary to custom governing the parties, who are residents of Tehsil naraingarh of District Ambala, because the said custom bars adoption by Jats of naraingarh Tehsil. Charhta also suffered a consent decree dated 23-10-1982 in favour of defendant regarding the suit land. The said decree has also been assailed in the suit being unregistered one, although relating to property worth more than Rs.100/-requiring compulsory registration. The defendant, however, staked his claim to the suit land on the basis of aforesaid decree dated 23-10-1982 as well as on the ground of being adopted son of Charhta. The alleged custom barring adoption was alleged to be not applicable in view of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short "the Adoptions Act" ). Learned civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City vide judgment and decree dated 7-2-2003 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit land on the basis of having inherited the same from Charhta. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs also stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 7-4-2004. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the case file.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended at the outset that scope of second appeal under Sec.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is very limited and the same can be entertained only on the ground that substantial question of law arises for determination. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on three judgments of Honble Supreme Court in "gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, 2006 (2) RCJ 623 : AIR 2006 SC 1975, "santosh Hazari V/s. Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L. Rs. " 2001 (3) HCR (Civil) 243 : air 2001 SC 965 and "govindaraju V/s. Mariamman" AIR 2005 SC 1008. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition laid down in these judgments and the same is also manifest from bare reading of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in the instant case, substantial question of law arises as to Whether the Adoption Act overrides the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs ?

6. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that the defendant was adopted by way of registered adoption deed dated 13-8-1982. In view of Sec.18 of the Adoptions act, the Court has to presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. However, nothing to the contrary has been proved (except the question of custom to be adjudicated upon hereinafter ). So as a question of fact, adoption of defendant by Charhta stands proved.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that as per riwazeaam Exhibit P.10, there is custom barring adoption by Jats of Tehsil naralngarh. The parties are admittedly Jats of Tehsil Naraingarh. However, both the courts below have held that in view of Sec.4 of the Adoptions Act, the aforesaid custom cannot prevail and the Act has overriding effect. Sec.4 of the Adoptions Act is reproduced hereunder :

"4. Overriding effect of Act :-

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act:- (a) any text, rule or interpretation of hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which