N.K. Sodhi, J.

1. This regular second appeal in directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon affirming that of the trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondents was partly decreed and the adoption of Sahdev Singh appellant by Tara Chand was held to be illegal and void. The Will executed by Tara Chand in favour of Sahdev Singh was also held to be invalid qua the agricultural land.

2. Lakshhmi Chand and Karan Singh sons of Chiranji Lal filed a suit for a declaration that the alleged adoption of Sahdev Singh son of Ganpat Ram by Tara Chand did not take place and that it was illegal and void. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the alleged Will executed by Tara Chand in favour of Sahdev Singh was also illegal, ineffective and void. Parties to the suit are high caste Hindus and they follow Mitakshara Hindu Law in matters of alienation and adoption etc. Tara Chand defendants No. 1 is the uncle of the plaintiffs and he is issueless having no son or daughter. Plaintiffs claim that on his death they are entitled to succeed to his movable and immovable prop;rties including Dohli lands held by him. It is alleged that Tara Chand never adopted Sahdev Singh who is over 30 years of age and is married and has a wife and three children living. The Will executed by Tara Chand in favour of Sahdev Singh was also sought to be challenged on the ground that the same was illegal and void. The suit was contested by the defendants and they pleaded that they are governed by agricultural custom of Haryana in matters of adoption and alienation and that they are not governed by Hindu Law. They also pleaded that the property held by Tara Chand including the agricultural land is not ancestral. They further pleaded that Sahdev Singh had been adopted by Tara Chand on 14.1.1975 and that according to the custom a married person having children could be adopted. Sahdev Singh had also filed a separate written statement challenging the locus-standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit. He pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to challenge his adoption or even the Will executed by Tara Chand in his favour and that even though the parties are Gaur Brahmins, they were governed by agricultural custom whereby a married man with children could be adopted. He also pleaded that he had been validly adopted by Tara Chand. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:

1. Whether the suit property is ancestral in nature qua the plaintiffs OPP

2. Whether the parties are governed by custom in matters of alienation and adoption If so, what is that custom OPD (Objected to).

3. Whether defendant No. 1 adopted defendant No.2 as his son (Objected to).

4. If issue No.3 is not proved, whether the adoption of defendant No.2 by defendant Not is valid

5. Whether defendant No.1 had no authority to alienate the suit and by way of Will OPP (Objected to).

6. Whether defendant No.1 executed a valid Will in favour of defendant No.2 OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the adoption deed and Will in favour of defendant No.2 OPD

8. Whether the suit is time barred OPD

9. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit OPD (Objected to).

10. Relief.

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit properties were non-ancestral in nature and that the agricultural lands in the hands of Tara Chand were Dohli tenures. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and it was held that the parties were governed by Hindu Law and not by agricultural custom. Under issues No.3 and 4, the trial Court held that Sahdev Singh had been adopted by Tara Chand but the adoption was null and void because the same was in contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956(for short the). Issues No.5 and 6 were partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and partly against them and it was held that the Will Exhibit D-2 had been executed by Tara Chand in favour of Sahdev Singh but the same was invalid to the extent it bequeathed agricultural land in favour of Sahdev Singh. The Will was held valid as regards the other property of Tara Chand which was not ancestral. Issue No.7 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that hey were not estopped from challenging the validity of the adoption deed and the Will. Issues No.8 and 9 were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed. The adoption of Sahdev Singh by Tara Chand was declared null and void. The Will was also declare void and only in regard to the agricultural lands but it was held to be valid insofar as it related to the other properties of Tara Chand. Feeling aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, Sahdev Singh and Tara Chand filed an appeal in the court of Additional District judge, Gurgaon. Plaintiffs also filed cross-objections and both the appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed on 4.9.1980. Sahdev Singh and Tara Chand then filed this regular second appeal.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The real dispute between the parties relates to the agricultural land held by Tara Chand as a Dohli tenure. The courts have concurrently found that these lands were non-ancestral. This finding of the courts below is based on evidence on the record. Pert of the agricultural land has been held to be ancestral while some has been held to be non-ancestral as it was not inherited by Chiranji Lal and Tara Chand from their forefathers. It may be mentioned that Chiranji Lal and Tara Chand are brothers. The courts below found that ancestral and non-ancestral lands were so inextricably mixed up and the ancestral land could not be identified as against non-ancestral land and it is for this reason that the entire agricultural land was held to be non-ancestral in nature. Reliance in this regard was placed on a judgment of this Court in Teja Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Bishan Kaur and Ors. (1961)63 P.L.R. 875. I have perused the finding of the courts below and find no ground to take a view different from the one taken by them. Consequently, this finding is affirmed.

4. As regards the adoption of Sahdev Singh by Tara Chand, the same stands proved by the adoption deed but the courts below were right in holding that the adoption was illegal at it contravened the provision of Section 10 of the. Section 10 clearly postulates that a person cannot be taken in adoption if he has not completed 15 years of age unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of 15 years being taken in adoption. It has been concurrently found (sic) consideration of the evidence that the parties are governed by Hindu law and not by agricultural custom as alleged by the defendants. The courts were, therefore, right in holding that the adoption of Sahdev Singh was illegal because he was more than 30 years of age at the time of adoption and he was a married man with a wife and three children. Thus, he could not be taken in adoption in view of Section 10 of the.

5. As regards the Will, the courts have partly held the same to be invalid insofar as it partains to the agricultural land. It is not in dispute between the parties that the agricultural land held by Tara Chand was a Dohli tenure. Since a Dohli tenure cannot be alienated, the alienatirn made in favour of Sahdev Singh was rightly held to be illegal. The Will also bequeaths other immovable property of which Tara Chand was the absolute owner and qua those proprieties he had a right to Will the same in favour of Sahdev Singh. To that extent the Will had been held to be valid. No meaningful argument was advanced by the counsel for the parties in challenging the findings recorded by the courts below. I have, therefore, no hesitation in affirming all the findings.

In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.