The main legal point established is the importance of evidence in proving adoption and customary law in determining inheritance rights, and the burden of proof on parties to establish custom.

Hemant Gupta, J. - The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff to the effect that he is owner in possession to the extent of 2/3rd share while the defendants are owners in possession in respect of 1/3rd share of land measuring 112 kanals 17 marlas, was decreed.

2. The plaintiff is son of Devi Chand s/o Ram Ditta s/o Wazira. Wazira had two sons i.e. Ram Ditta from whom the plaintiff is drawing his title, the other son was Moti. It is the case of the plaintiff that Moti was adopted by one Jawahar of village Barian (now in Tehsil Anandpur Sahib) about 100 years back and that since the date of adoption, Moti had severed all his links for all purposes with his natural family and became a part and parcel of his adopted fathers family. The revenue record continue to reflect Moti as heir of Wazira and, therefore, plaintiff be declared owner of the suit land.

3. In the written statement filed on behalf of heirs of Moti, it was pleaded that Moti has been residing in the village and used to look after the suit land and the house property. It was pleaded that if at all the plaintiff succeeded in proving the alleged adoption then deceased Moti had not severed the relations or interest with his natural family as per custom prevailing in Punjab and Hoshiarpur District. It was also alleged that Ram Dita, grand- father of the plaintiff, never objected to the right of Moti during his life time. Ram Ditta had been seeing, admitting and considering said Moti as an heir and co-owner of the property. Alternatively, it was also pleaded that defendant Nos. 8 to 10 have perfected their title, their long, continuous, uninterrupted and unobstructed possession and hostile as they are in possession for the last more than 70 years after the death of Wazira.

4. Though the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, a finding was returned on Issue No. 1 that Moti was adopted by Jawahar. It was so held on the basis of mutation Exhibit P8 in respect of estate of Jawahar whose land was mutated in the name of Moti on 19.03.1891. Exhibit P5 is Shajra Nasab which reflects Moti as adopted son of Jawahar. PW 1 Swaran Singh and PW2 Sansar Chand, the villagers, have also deposed that they have heard from their elders that Moti was adopted by Jawahar. Thus, it was found that Moti is proved to be adopted by Jawahar. Such finding of the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court as well.

5. Learned trial Court on Issue Nos. 2 and 9 returned a finding that the estate of Wazira was inherited by Ram Ditta and Moti being the natural sons of Wazira. The learned trial Court found that in mutation, Exhibit D5, and jamabandi for the year 1966-67, Exhibit D7, Moti is shown as son of Wazira, therefore, it can be held that Moti has not severed his relations with his original family after his adoption. Still further, it was found that one instance given by the plaintiff to the effect that if male person is adopted, he loses his right in the property of his natural father is not sufficient to return a finding that there was a custom in Garhshankar area that the person adopted cannot succeed the property of his natural father. The said finding has been reversed by the learned first Appellate Court on the basis of Rattigans Digest of Customary Law and the fact that PW4 Anant Ram has positively deposed that he belongs to Hoshiarpur district and Jat by caste and has been adopted. He inherited the property of his adopted father and not of natural father as per custom prevailing in the Jats of Hoshiarpur district. It was found that there is no evidence in rebuttal examined on behalf of the defendants that no such custom was prevalent in Hoshiarpur district among Jats nor there was any positive evidence to show that such custom had been abandoned. It was also found that mere sanctioning of mutation in the name of heir does not crea