JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—This is plaintiffs Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed on January 6, 1981 by Additional District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamsala, dismissing his appeal and there by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing his suit. 2. Plaintiff by filing a suit claimed a decree for possession of I/4th share in the estate left by Bidhu his father. He challenged the will dated March 9, 1^66 alleged to have been executed by his father Bidhu in favour of his three other brothers. Besides challenging the due execution of the Will, it was alleged by him that the parties and late Shri Bidhu in the matter alienations and succession were governed by agricultural custom and according to the same Bidhu had no right to execute any Will affecting the ancestral property. The defendants contested the suit by supporting the Will by denying the fact of ancestral nature of the property and the alleged custom. The locus-standi of the plaintiff to challenge the Will or to claim any share in the property was also challenged on the ground that he, in fact, had been adopted by Smt. Jugni and had succeeded to the estate left by her and as such was not entitled to claim any interest in the estate left by his natural father. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding the land to be ancestral qua the plaintiff and Bidhu deceased and the parties to be governed in the matter of alienation and succession by custom under which ancestral property could not be bequeathed to the exclusion of one son. The Will was held to have been validly executed. It was further held that the plaintiff had been adopted by Jugni widow of Shankar and had inherited her estate and for this reason could not maintain a suit and claim inheritance to the estate left by his father. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant has come up in Second Appeal before this Court challenging the decision of the courts below. 4. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant has come up in Second Appeal before this Court challenging the decision of the courts below. 4. The findings recorded by the courts below qua the ancestral nature of the property and the parties in the matter of alienation being covered by custom under which a proprietor had no right to make a Will in favour of his sons excluding one of them have not been challenged in this appeal by the parties. The plaintiff has challenged the Ending with respect to the due execution of the Will by his father Bidhu but the same is incapable of being challenged in view of concurrent finding of fact. The other grounds on which challenge has been made to the findings recorded by the courts below are with respect to the adoption on the basis of which, it has been contended that the suit was liable to be decreed. It has been argued that, as a matter of fact, there was no adoption of the plaintiff and she being the widow and the plaintiff being married at the time of alleged adoption, the adoption, if any, was not legal and as such he was not debarred from claiming interest in the property of his father. These arguments have been repelled by the Counsel for the respondents by urging that both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was adopted by Smt. Jugni and had infact inherited her estate and that, therefore, the same are not liable to be interfered with in the Second Appeal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. I find much force in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The plea with respect to adoption of plaintiff by Smt. Jugni is contained in paras 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the written statement, wherein it has been alleged that she had about thirty years ago adopted the plaintiff with the consent of his father. The adoption was in accordance with law as well as under the custom applicable to the Ghirths of Kangra and had infact adopted the plaintiff according to law and thereafter he had succeeded to the estate left by her husband as her adopted son. The adoption was in accordance with law as well as under the custom applicable to the Ghirths of Kangra and had infact adopted the plaintiff according to law and thereafter he had succeeded to the estate left by her husband as her adopted son. She had also made a gift of her property in his favour and as the plaintiff had been lawfully adopted by Smt. Jugai, therefore, he was not entitled to claim any interest in his natural family. The plaintiff in replication denied that there was any such custom or that he was ever adopted by Smt. Jugni. The courts below while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was adopted and that there was custom to this effect have placed reliance upon the statements of DW 2 Mangat Ram and DW 3 Lakha Singh and the fact of Smt. Jugni having made gift of her property in favour of plaintiff and also on the circumstance that the plaintiff succeeded to the estate of Smt. Jugni, as her adopted son. From the record, I find that these findings are not sustainable in law. it is an admitted fact, as has also been stated by DW-2, Mangat Ram that when plaintiff was adopted by Smt. Jugni, in or about the year 1947, he was married and she was widow. Parties belong to Ghirth community of Tehsil Kangra. Section VI of the Customary Law of Kangra District as compiled by L. Middleton, ICS, Settlement Officer, Kangra, which forms part of revised settlement for 1914-18, deals with adopt on. Answer to question 66 of the said compilation, is recorded as under; "Question 66 s Is it necessary that the person adopting should have no son, grandson or great-grandson ? Is a daughters son a bar to the right of adoption ? Answer : The Brahmans of Palampur Tehsil, Bhojkis of Dehra Tehsil, Jats, Sainis, Ghtrths, Bhojkis and Gossins of Kangra Tehsil and Jats of Nurpur Tehsil state that among them there is no custom authorising adoption. Among other tribes generally a man can only adopt if he has no male lineal descendants, but the presence of a daughters son is no bar to an adoption." From the above, it is clear that there was no custom authorising adoption amongst Ghirths of Tehsil Kangra. Among other tribes generally a man can only adopt if he has no male lineal descendants, but the presence of a daughters son is no bar to an adoption." From the above, it is clear that there was no custom authorising adoption amongst Ghirths of Tehsil Kangra. As such, the other illustrations given in question No. 70 that a widow could only adopt with the verbal or written permission of her husband or with the consent of her husbands collateral, will not apply in the present case. 6. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that persons governed by the custom of agriculturist could fall back on their personal law, where no custom is in existence. No doubt, in the absence of any custom, personal law would be applicable but even under Hindu Law, adoption of a married person was not valid (See 2 section 480, Mulla Principles of Hindu Law at page 596, Fifteenth Edition) None of the witnesses produced by defendants was in a position to cite an example of such an adoption having taken place amongst the Ghirths of Tehsil Kangra. 7. Legal position apart even the facts and circumstances on record suggest that the plaintiff was never adopted by Smt Jugni and was never considered as such during her life time. Even the plaintiff did not succeed to the estate of Smt. Jugni. The evidence on record further shows that Smt Jugni, in fact, bad made a gift of part of her property in favour of the plaintiff as son of Bidhu and the said land is recorded in the ownership and possession of plaintiff. PW-I, Ved Vratt, Office Kanungo, who also appeared as DW-1 and PW-4, Kartar Chand, Moharrir Patwari, produced and proved excerpts from the revenue records. The land is situated within two revenue estates, namely Tika Laleshar and Tika Kawari Consolidation of Holdings proceedings took place during the year 1959-60. 7 Kanals 18 Marias of land in Tika Laleshar and 8 Kanals 11 Marlas in Tika Kawari as shown in Ex D/3 and Ex. D/2 respectively was gifted by Smt. Jugni in favour of Bhimsen, plaintiff, son of Bidhu vide mutations No. 553 and 291, respectively. This land subsequent to consolidation of holdings operation is recorded in Exs. D/10 and D/9 respectively as measuring 8 Kanals 14 Marias in Tika Laleshar and 7 Kanals 4 Marlas in Tika Kawari. D/2 respectively was gifted by Smt. Jugni in favour of Bhimsen, plaintiff, son of Bidhu vide mutations No. 553 and 291, respectively. This land subsequent to consolidation of holdings operation is recorded in Exs. D/10 and D/9 respectively as measuring 8 Kanals 14 Marias in Tika Laleshar and 7 Kanals 4 Marlas in Tika Kawari. In revenue excerpts PW 4/A, Bidhu son of Gurditta is shown to be the owner of 27 Kanals 16 marlas of land in Tika Laleshar aiongwith Smt. Jugni, mother of Bhajnoo, both having equal snare therein. Smt. Jugni died on October 2, 1951. On the basis of two mutations of inheritance No 610 of Tika Laleshar, copy of which Ex P/9 and 318 of Tika Kawari, copy of which is Ex. P/10 of the estate of Smt. Jugni, mother of Bhajnoo son of Shankar has been attested in favour of bidhu son of Gurditta and on that basis in documents Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/3, which are entries pertaining to suit land prior to consolidation proceedings, Bidhu is shown to be the exclusive owner. Subsequent to consolidation, in lieu of this land Bidhu was allotted land during consolidation, which is shown in document Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/4, measuring 28 kanals 14 marlas and 28 kanals 6 marlas situate in Tika Laleshar and Kawari, respectively. In revenue records, plaintiff is shown to be the son of Bidhu and owner of that property of which gift was made by Smt. Jugni in his favour. Had the plaintiff been the adopted son of her, there was no reason of her estate being mutated in favour of Bidhu, the nearest collateral as natural heir. Though the plaintiff in the cross-examination has admitted that he has got with him the entire property of Smt. Jugni, but this cannot be said to be a clear admission admitting the fact that the entire estate of Smt Jugni had devolved upon him by way of succession. The defendants have not produced on record any document to show that after the death of Smt. Jugni, plaintiff inherited any part of her estate as her adopted son In view of mutations Exs. P/9 and P/10 and in view of the other entries in revenue records, there is no manner of doubt that it was Bidhu who inherited the estate of Smt Jugni and not the plaintiff. P/9 and P/10 and in view of the other entries in revenue records, there is no manner of doubt that it was Bidhu who inherited the estate of Smt Jugni and not the plaintiff. The case set up by the defendants that plaintiff was adopted by Smt Jugni naturally falls in view of this evidence. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the recital made by Bidhu in Ex. D/l during his life time is to the effect that plaintiff had been adopted by Smt. Jugni and on that basis it was argued that this is also one of the circumstance to warrant a conclusion that adoption, in fact, had taken place. The mere recital in a document is not conclusive unless the correctness thereof is proved. I have been taken through the statements o f DW-2, Mangat Ram and DW-3, Lakha Singh and the same cannot be believed as the same are self contradictory and further DW-2 is a relation of respondent No 1 and is an interested witness. Their statements lack in confidence. In view of ail this, the findings of the courts below that plaintiff was the adopted son of Smt. Jugni and inherited her estate as such and further that he had no locus standi to sue cannot be sustained in law. 8. The question which next arises is as to what relief the plaintiff is entitled. He has claimed 1/4th share in the estate of his deceased father Bidhu, on the ground that he left behind four sons but there is no denial on his part that besides the four sons there are two daughters also. He died on December 9, 1971, and as such, his four sons and two daughters have jointly inherited his estate in equal shares. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed by granting him a decree for joint possession of l/6th share in the suit property, as described in the plaint. 10. Parties will suffer their respective costs. Appeal allowed.