JUDGMENT

Zafar Ali, J. - Kanhaya, a sonless Hindu Jat proprietor of the village Kukran, District Hoshiarpur, having adopted his sister's son, his first cousins on the father's side sued to have it declared that that adoption was invalid by custom and would not affect their rights as reversioners.

2. The Riwaj-i-am of the Hoshiarpur District prepared in 1884 declared that adoption of a sister's son had the sanction of custom and this was repeated in the Riwaj-i-am compiled in 19J4 which cited several instances in support of the said custom. However, the trial Court (Munsif of Hoshiarpur) placed the onus of proving the custom on the defendants and eventually came to the conclusion that they had failed to discharge it. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the defendants and should be placed on the plaintiffs, and remanded the case to enable the latter to discharge the onus thus placed on them. Both parties produced further evidence before the Munsif who reported that that adduced by the plaintiffs was not sufficient to discharge the onus laid on them. On receiving this return to the order of remand, the learned District Judge issued a comt mission to the Revenue Assistan-Hoshiarpur, for a local enquiry which he accordingly made and submitted a report. When this was received, counsel for the plaintiffs admitted before the District Judge that they had failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them, and therefore he accepted the appeal and dismissed their suit. They preferred a second appeal to this Court which was admitted on a certificate which though originally refused was granted subsequently by the District Judge in pursuance of an order of this Court., It is again contended before us on the authority of Ralla v. Budha [1893] 50 P.R. 1893 that the initial burden of proof lay on the defendants who alleged that the adoption of a sister's son was valid and that the District Judge was wrong in shifting the burden on to the plaintiffs. In the case, referfed to, the parties were Arains of a village in the Nawanshahar Tahsil of the Jullundur District and the adoption contested was of a daughter's son-According to the Riwaj-i-am of the Jullundur District, a daughter's or sister's son could not be adopted, as stated in the penultimate paragraph at page 228 of the said judgment itself, and therefore the onus of proving that the adoption of a daughters son was valid by custom was rightly thrown on the party who set up that custom contrary to the Riwaj-i-am. This ruling therefore lends no support to plaintiffs' contention as to burden of proof. Another ruling cited on this point was Budhu v. Bur [1895] 84 P.R. 1895. in which it was held that the onus of proving the validity of the adoption Of a daughter's son lay on the person asserting it, and that the Riwaj-i-am of 1884 did not correctly represent existing custom; but the latest decisions of this Court relating to the evidential value of a Riwaj-i-am are that where a statement in a Riwaj-i-am as to the existence of a custom is supported by instances, it affords sufficient proof of that custom unless rebutted by the party who denies it [see Mt. Ishar Kaur v. Raja Singh [1911] 94 P.L.R. 1911, Chhuttan v. Hazari Lal [1915] 7 P.R. 1916 and Wazira v. Mt. Mariyam [1917] 84 P.R. 1917] Apart from these decisions there is the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Beg v. Allah Ditta [1917] 44 Cal. 749, that an entry in a Riwaj-i-am as to a custom is a strong piece of evidence in support of that custom, and that it lay on the person denying that custom to rebut that evidence. We are therefore of opinion that the onus of proving that the adoption of a sister's son was not valid lay on the plaintiffs and was rightly placed on them by the learned District Judge.

3. Next it is argued that the plaintiffs did succeed in discharging the onus placed on them, but we are of opinion that they did not. Undoubtedly there is evidence either way