JUDGMENT

Verma, J. - This is an appeal by defendant 1. The plaintiff's suit was that

it be declared that defendant 1 is neither the adopted son of the deceased, Mrs. Surendri Helen Karam Singh or her husband, nor is the legal heir to her estate in the hands of the Administrator-General and Official Trustee, United Provinces, Allahabad, which is divisible according to law only amongst the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 who are her legal heirs.

2. The Court below has decreed the suit. The plaintiff and the persons who were originally defendants 2 to 4 are brothers. Mrs, Surendri Helen Karam Singh deceased was their sister. Dr. J.C. Bhattacharji, who was originally defendant 2, seems to have died after the institution of the suit and a number of persons have been brought on the record as his legal representatives.

3. The plaintiff and his brothers are Christians. So were their sister, Mrs. Surendri Karam Singh deceased, and her husband, Mr. Karam Singh. These facts are admitted. It is also common ground that Karam Singh died intestate on 2nd September 1931, and all his property was inherited by his widow, the sister of the plaintiff. It is again common ground that this lady, Mrs. Surendri Helen Karam Singh, also died intestate on 11th April 1932. At the time of her death she was possessed of moveable and immovable property and the dispute in this case relates to this property. The case of the plaintiff is that the deceased Mrs. Karam Singh being a Christian, he and his brothers are the legal heirs in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Defendant 1, who is a minor under the guardianship of one Dr. Miss C.M. John, contested the suit. The principal pleas raised on behalf of defendant 1 were that the property did not belong to the lady, Mrs. Surendri Helen Karam Singh; that all the property was owned by her husband, the late Mr. Sardar Karam Singh; that defendant 1 was the legally adopted son of the late Mr. and Mrs. Karam Singh, and as such was entitled to the estate left by them; that Mr. Karam Singh and his wife were competent to adopt the contesting defendant as their son and heir under the Punjab Customary Laws; and that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the adoption. In para. 24 of the written statement it was further pleaded that

the deceased Sardar Karam Singh was a Sikh by caste before his conversion to Christianity and in the matter of succession was governed by rules of Hindu law and Punjab Customary Law. The plaintiff and his brothers are no heirs to the late Mr. Karam Singh.

4. The Court below has held that the property in question belonged to Mrs. Surendri Helen Karam Singh; that defendant 1 was not the adopted son of Mr. or Mrs. Karam Singh; that he was not their heir and was not entitled to inherit the property in question; that no custom of adoption governing Indian Christians had been proved, and that there was no estoppel against the plaintiff.

5. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant 1 was a foundling whom the late Mr. Karam Singh had taken over from the police at Lahore with the intention of protecting him and bringing him up. In proof of this assertion, the plaintiff has filed Ex. 4, which is a certified copy of a police report dated 27th June 1929. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, one of the witnesses produced by defendant 1, admits that this report bears his signature. He was the Kotwal at Lahore at that time. It is stated in this report that the maintenance and care of "the newly born child" (the word in the original is "tifl" and the verb used in the original denotes that the child was a male child) had been at first made over to one Hafiz Lohar, but afterwards, on account of the unsatisfactory manner in which Hafiz looked after the child, it had been entrusted to Mr. Karam Singh, Station Superintendent of the office of the Inspector-General of Police, Lahore. It is also stated in this report that Mr. Karam Singh expressed a desire that the child be made over to him. This report was put up