JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 7-11-1983 passed by District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Nahan whereby the appeal of respondents-plaintiffs was accepted and the decree and judgment dated 23-2-1983 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh, District Solan was set aside. The Sub-Judge had dismissed the suit of respondents-plaintiffs. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Dooru, who was common ancestor of the parties, was owner in possession of the property in dispute. Dooru had six sons, namely, Kanshi Ram, Surtia, Jeunu, Mast Ram, Kali Ram and Bugha. One of them, namely, Mast Ram, whose successors are appellants-defendants, was adopted by one Jangi, a distant collateral of Dooru, by a registered adoption deed dated 25th Chait, 1977 Bk. Ext. PW-3/A. The case of the respondents-plaintiffs was that after adoption Mast Ram stood transplanted in the family of his adopted father Jangi, as such, he lost all rights, title and interest in the suit property belonging to his natural father Dooru. According to them, Mast Ram had accepted this position at the time when suit property was partitioned between remaining five sons of Dooru on 6-6-1957. They claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit property as owners and in the alternative their case was that their possession being in exclusion of the appellants-defendants for a period of more than 12 years had ripned into their possessory title. The entries in the revenue record wherein the suit property is recorded in ownership and possession of all the six sons of Dooru was also challenged. 3. The appellants-defendants had resisted the suit on the ground that adoption of Mast Ram by Jangi was never acted upon as it was cancelled by Raja Sahib of Nalagarh and he continued to be son of his natural father Dooru. According to them, the respondents-plaintiffs were estopped to file the suit because they had not only been recorded in revenue record but in physical possession as owners from the very beginning to the knowledge of respondents-plaintiffs. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit accepting the defence of the appellants-defendants holding that in view of cancellation of adoption of Mast Ram, by Raja of Nalagarh, he continued to be son of his natural father. These findings have been reversed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 5. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit accepting the defence of the appellants-defendants holding that in view of cancellation of adoption of Mast Ram, by Raja of Nalagarh, he continued to be son of his natural father. These findings have been reversed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 5. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants, has urged that the first appellate Court has misread and misinterpreted the documents—Wajib-ul-arj Ext. P-X ; Report of Naib-Tehsildar dated 13-1-1990 Bk. Ext. D-10 ; Order dated 2-2-1990 Bk. Ext. D-11 ; Order dated 5-2-1990 Bk. Ext. D-5 ; Order dated 6-2-1990 Bk. passed by Raja of Nalagarh Ext. D-12 and Mutation No. 5 Ext. D-8, by which it was established that the adoption of Mast Ram by Jangi could not be acted upon and it stood cancelled. 6. After perusing these documents, this Court does not find any substance in this submission. Paragraph 11 of Wajib-ul-arj Ext. PX relates to customs and mutation of inheritance of such persons whose lands were situated in Mohal Nalagarh. It provides that collaterals of deceased landowner who fall within five degrees or within five to ten degrees are entitled to inherit his property on payment of Nazrana stated therein and if there is no collateral to the deceased landowner upto ten degrees then land will be considered as belonging to issueless persons and State will be empowered to give it to an agriculturist of the estate on prevalent market value and on his refusal it could be sold to the stranger. Shri Gupta has not been able to point out any clause in the Wajib-ul-arj which puts bar on an issueless landowner to adopt a son. Further, perusal of Exts. D-10, D-11, D-5 and D-12 clearly shows that though it was found by the Revenue Authorities that Jangi had adopted Mast Ram as his son vide registered adoption deed, who had been living with him as his son during his life time and who had also performed last rites after his death yet in view of the Wajib-ul-arj that being collateral within five degrees to ten degrees, he was entitled to inherit on payment of Nazrana, the authorities instead of attesting mutation of inheritance of estate of Jangi in favour of Mast Ram as his adopted son considered him as a collateral on payment of Nazrana. There is nothing in these orders to suggest that at any point of time the authorities took decision that the adoption of Mast Ram by Jangi was not valid being against Wajib-ul-arj or liable to be cancelled for any other reason. It is a fact that Mast Ram had not inherited the property of Jangi as his adopted son but from this it cannot be inferred that his adoption stood cancelled as alleged by appellants-plaintiffs. 7. The next question arises—Did Mast Ram lose his status of adopted son and continue to be the son of his natural father as a result of his not inheriting the property of Jangi as his adopted son ? Shri Sanjiv Kuthiala, appearing vice learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 493 and 494 of Hindu Law by Mulla to point out that once adoption was complete it could not be reversed irrespective of inheritance of the property of adopted father by the adopted son. Paragraph 493 of Hindu Law by Malla is:— "A valid adoption once made cannot be cancelled by the adoptive father or other parties thereto nor can the adopted son renounce his status as such and return to his family of birth. But there is nothing to prevent him from renouncing his right of inheritance in the adoptive family, in which case the inheritance would go to the next heir." 8. Shri Kuthiala has further pointed out that there is ample evidence on record to show that after adoption Mast Ram continued living with Jangi and he was considered as adopted son by everyone. Despite attestation of mutation of inheritance of Dooru in his favour alongwith other five sons of Dooru and recording of his ownership and possession in the revenue record alongwith other five sons of Dooru, Mast Ram had never asserted his right in the property of his natural father knowing fully well that he had no such right, as it is apparent from document Ext. PW-l/A and other evidence on record. 9. On the other hand, Shri Gupta referring to judgment in Gainda and another v. Mt. PW-l/A and other evidence on record. 9. On the other hand, Shri Gupta referring to judgment in Gainda and another v. Mt. Jai Devi and another, AIR 1944 Lah 90 ; Inder represented by Arjan and another v. Mukhtar minor s/o Rai Singh and others, AIR 1945 Lah 17 ; Mukhtar Singh v Nathal and another, AIR 1946 Lah 305 and Gurnam Singh v. Smt. Ass Kaur and others, AIR 1977 P and H 103, has pointed out that adoption under the Punjab Customary Law is different than the adoption under Hindu Law, as under Punjab Customary Law only a personal relationship is established between the appointed heir and appointer, and there is no question of transplantation of adopted son into the family of his adopted father and the adopted son does not lose his right to inherit property of his natural father. The proposition of law laid down in these judgments cannot be disputed. However, in the present case it has never been the case of the appellants-defendants that since the adoption of Mast Ram was under the Punjab Customary Law he was only appointed heir by Jangi of his property and he did not lose his right to inherit the property of his natural father. In the written statement no custom has been pleaded and the clear stand is that, "adoption deed was executed by Jangi in favour of Mastu but the said adoption was cancelled by the then Raja Sahib of Nalagarh State and was not acted upon................. ...and the ties of Mast Ram alias Mastu were not severed from the family of Dooru to the family of Jangi as alleged in this para." In other words, had the adoption deed not cancelled or acted upon, Mast Ram would have been transplanted in the family of adopted father. Since this Court has already held that the adoption deed was neither cancelled nor could be cancelled in law, it is held that Mast Ram stood transplanted in the family of adopted father. Therefore, this plea cannot be-permitted to be advanced in this second appeal in the absence of any pleading as well as evidence on record. The adoption had taken place as far back as in the year 1920 A. D. and the parties being Hindu, the only conclusion is that they were governed by Hindu Law in the matter of adoption. Therefore, this plea cannot be-permitted to be advanced in this second appeal in the absence of any pleading as well as evidence on record. The adoption had taken place as far back as in the year 1920 A. D. and the parties being Hindu, the only conclusion is that they were governed by Hindu Law in the matter of adoption. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -