JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - This second appeal is against the confirming judgments of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs suit thereby holding that late Bauribandhu, the third brother of the plaintiff was not adopted to the family of their maternal grand father and, therefore, was rightly recorded jointly in the Record-of-Rights as the plaintiffs co-sharer. 2. Plaintiffs case is, he himself, defendant No.6 Krushnachandra and Bauribandhu were brothers. The property in dispute stood recorded in the name of their late father Jagnnath in the Record-of-Rights of 1927-28. Bauribandhu when aged seven years was given in adoption to Banambar, their maternal grand-father and since then he stayed in village Siruli thereby severing all relationship with his father's family and having succeeded to the properties of Banambar he was recorded to the properties of Banambar he was recorded in respect of the said properties after death of Banamber. Plaintiff filed the suit, since in the last settlement defendants 1 to 5, the successors of Bauribandhu, were recorded jointly with the plaintiff. The defendants in the written statement took joint stand that Bauribandhu's adoption was false and hence denied. It was further pleaded that Bauribandhu all along stayed in village Naranpur and enjoyed the property of Jagannath and at no time he lived at village Siruli. 3. Plaintiff did not adduce any evidence with regard to the adoption but relied on the Ext.3, the Record-of-Rights of the year 1927-28, where- Bauribandhu was described as the son of Banambar and Exts. 1 and 2, that two registered sale-deeds of the year 1943 where Bauribandhu while executing the sale-deeds in respect of the properties of Banambar described himself as son of Banambar, The defendants proved Exts. A to H which showed that Banambar was mentioned by others as the son of Jagannath. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements of adoption i.e., giving and taking. It was further held that assuming there was any such adoption, the same was invalid since Hindu Law prohibited that the parties who are 'Karan' by caste and thus belonged to the regenerated class, could not adopt daughter's son. 4. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant referring to the two sale-deeds (Exts. 1 and 2) executed by late Bauribandhu describing himself as the son of Banambar and the Record-of-Rights of the year 1927-28 (Ext. 4. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant referring to the two sale-deeds (Exts. 1 and 2) executed by late Bauribandhu describing himself as the son of Banambar and the Record-of-Rights of the year 1927-28 (Ext. 3) mentioning Bauribandhu as the son of Banambar, strenuously urged that those documents were sufficient enough to draw an inference about the fact of adoption as claimed by the plaintiff. With regard to the other substantial questions of law, Mr. Mohanty submitted that though there is no dispute about the finding of the Courts below that parties being 'Karan' and, therefore, belong to the regenerated class, yet the Courts committed gross error in throwing the burden of pleading and proving custom on the plaintiff which is against the law of evidence. Mr. N.C. Pati, the learned Counsel for the defendant-respondents while countering the argument of Mr. Mohanty, submitted that Exts. A to H are sufficient to disprove the fact of adoption and thus supported the judgment of the Courts below. We may examine the rival contentions. 5. Plaintiffs case is when Bauribandhu was seven year old he was given in adoption to Banambar. Ext. G is the School Leaving Certificate proved by the defendants which shows that Bauribandhu was born in 1914. Therefore, the year of adoption as claimed could be fixed some time during the year 1921. On the face of it, the adoption claimed is an ancient adoption for which no evidence could be led. Appropriate notice can be taken (though there may be exceptional cases and such cases may be far and few between) that because of such long lapse of years, normally witnesses who might have been present at the time of adoption may not be available and in such cases it could be properly construed that adoption has been proved otherwise by drawing inference from the materials on record as claimed in the present case, which is rather the corner stone of argument of Mr. Mohanty. 6. Exts. 1 and 2 are the sale-deeds of the year 1943 executed by Bauribandhu in which he has described himself as the son of Banambar. Ext. 3 is the Record-of-Rights and this is a public document wherein Bauribandhu has been described s the son of Banambar in respect of latter's property. Mr. Pati referred to the findings of the lower appellate Court and strenuously urged that the sale-deeds, Exts. Ext. 3 is the Record-of-Rights and this is a public document wherein Bauribandhu has been described s the son of Banambar in respect of latter's property. Mr. Pati referred to the findings of the lower appellate Court and strenuously urged that the sale-deeds, Exts. l and 2 are documents of thirty years old of which presumption could only be drawn with regard to the execution and attestation of documents but no presumption could be drawn with regard to the facts stated in the documents i.e., admission of Bauribandhu describing himself as the son of Banambar. In support of his contention Mr. Pati refers to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sauney Majhi and Another Vs. Duli Dei and Others, and single Bench decision in Promoda Kumar Sahu and Others Vs. Baidyanath Mishra and Others, . Mr. Mohanty, on the other hand, referred to the same decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahu (supra) and submitted that a presumption can be drawn in respect of recitals/contents of a document of 30 year old in the circumstances when evidence of actual giving and taking is wanting. 7. In this connection I may refer to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Banga Chandra Dhur Biswas and Another v. Jagat Kishore Acharya Choudhury and Others, AIR 1916 PC 110 , wherein the Court while dealing with an ancient adoption held that 'a document if challenged at or near about the time of its execution, then the recitals/contents would deserve but slight consideration. But when proof of actual enquiry has become impossible the recitals coupled with such circumstance would be sufficient evidence to support the deed, the Court proceeded as stating the law, that to hold otherwise would result in deciding that title becomes weaker as it grows older so that a transaction perfectly honest and legitimate when it took place would ultimately be incapable of justification merely owing to the passage of time.' The above proposition has also been aptly discussed in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahu, (supra) though stating the facts of that case the Court held that presumption regarding the contents of the document did not arise because facts contained in the deed were not denied by the other party. In the case of Sauney Majhi (supra) relied on by Mr. Pati the facts were different. In the case of Sauney Majhi (supra) relied on by Mr. Pati the facts were different. In that case the party examined one witness who claimed to have seen the fact of giving and taking, but the proof was not sufficient about the adoption. Therefore, the Court held that where evidence was available for establishing the ceremony of adoption irrespective of lapse of time, the relaxation permissible in the case of ancient adoption would not be available. That apart, it was held that the relationship between the adopted son and the father was not proved in that case. 8. Mr. Pati strenuously urged that the Courts below have correctly found that the Exts. A to H, the various letters amply disproved the fact that Bauribandhu was adopted by Banambar. According to the learned Counsel, those are the documents by persons written at different times mentioning the fact that Bauribandhu continued to be the son of Jagannath and not of Banambar. Neither the lower Court nor the lower appellate Court has discussed as to the effect of these documents for the finding that these documents outweighed the documents Exts. 1,2 and 3 of the plaintiff. Ext. A is the letter dated 9.1.1948 and Ext. C is another letter dated 9.1.1952 written by Krushnachandra, defendant No.6 the brother of Bauribandhu addressing the latter as brother. It was written from Cuttack. There is nothing to indicate that he was mentioned as the son of Jagannath. Ext. B dated 12.2.1965 is a certificate by an M.L. A. certifying that Bauribandhu, son of Jagannath Patnaik had been practising as a homeopathic practitioner since 1945 at Naranpur. Exts. D, E and F are the letters respectively dated 21.3.1949, 20.11.1953 and 20.3.1949 address to Bauribandhu at his Naranpur address, Ext. G is the School Leaving Certificate of the Brahmagiri U.P. School issued by the head Pandit and is dated 7.4.1930. This shows Jagannath Patnaik as the father of Bauribandhu and the date of Birth is 1914. The date of leaving the school was on 31.12.1927 while reading in class V. Ext. H is the licence dated 25.9.1968 for registered Homeopathy Practitioner, which mentions Bauribandhu as the son of Jagannath Patnaik of Naranpur. 9. The letters Exts. A, B, C, D, E and F seem to be written in between 1948 to 1953. The date of leaving the school was on 31.12.1927 while reading in class V. Ext. H is the licence dated 25.9.1968 for registered Homeopathy Practitioner, which mentions Bauribandhu as the son of Jagannath Patnaik of Naranpur. 9. The letters Exts. A, B, C, D, E and F seem to be written in between 1948 to 1953. At busy they merely show that at that time Bauribandhu was staying at village Naranpur for which the letters were addressed. From these documents it would not be correct to jump to the conclusion that Bauribandhu was not adopted by Banambar merely because his father's name was mentioned as' Jagannath' and he was staying at village Naranpur. Merely staying at village Naranpur would not disprove the fact of his having been adopted by Banambar. Ext. B, the Certificate indicates that he was Homeopathic Practitioner since 1945. Therefore in absence of any other materials, his stay at Naranpur could be connected with his practising homeopathy medicine at that place. 10. Ext. G, the school leaving certificate no doubt mentions the father's name of Bauribandhu as Jagannath Patnaik but as the common knowledge goes, some times the parents do not accompany the child in every case at the time of admission to the school. This document is of the year 1930 i.e., after Ext.3, the Record-of-Rights of the year 1927-28. Therefore, under what circumstance and on whose information the Head Pandit of the school mentioned Bauribandhu as the son of Jagannath is difficult to presume. 11. However, I am of the opinion that in-view of the clear admission of Bauribandhu mentioning himself as the son of Banambar in Exts. 1 and 2, the registered sale-deeds and Ext.3, the Record-of-Rights, these documents came into existence long after the year of adoption and further they are self-serving documents. The lower appellate Court has observed that in the sale-deeds Bauribandhu might have falsely described himself as the son of Banambar. This is obviously a wrong observation since Bauribandhu in his capacity as the son of Banambar transferred the right, title and interest in the property of Banambar and those documents were never challenged to far as they related to the authority of Bauribandhu to part with the property of Banambar. Rather, I would like to hold that the documents Exts. This is obviously a wrong observation since Bauribandhu in his capacity as the son of Banambar transferred the right, title and interest in the property of Banambar and those documents were never challenged to far as they related to the authority of Bauribandhu to part with the property of Banambar. Rather, I would like to hold that the documents Exts. A to H which came long after the time when the adoption to the family of Banambar, again trying a claim to the properties of his natural father could not be ruled out. This finding of the Courts below is, therefore, reversed. It should have been held by both the Courts below that on the basis of Exts. 1, 2 and 3 Bauribandhu was the adopted son of Banambar. 12. Mr. Pati strenuously urged that the parties are Ka ran by caste and thus belonged to the regenerated class and under the Hindu Law one cannot adopt the daughter's sons unless custom is proved. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the lower appellate Court was correct in holding that the adoption, if any, was invalid. Law is well-settled that custom has to be specifically pleaded and proved. When the plaintiff came forward with a case that Bauribandhu was adopted by Banambar at the age of seven the defendants in their written statements merely denied the fact of adoption but no where pleaded that such an adoption was prohibited under the law in the absence of custom. The question of the plaintiff pleading the presence of custom did not arise unless the same was controverted by the defendants who pleaded invalidity of the adoption. This contention of Mr. Pati is therefore, not accepted. No other substantial question is involved in the case. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgments and the decree of the Courts below arc set aside. Parties to bear their own cost. Final Result : Allowed