JUDGMENT J.S. Narang, J. - This judgment is being rendered in RFA No. 993 of 1983, which would dispose of RFA No. 993 of 1983, RSAs Nos. 306, 2249 of 1984, 3325 of 1985, Civil Revision No. 271 of 1988 and Civil Revision No. 3412 of 2000. These cases are being disposed of by a common judgment as the inter-connected matters relating to the members of the family, who are parties in respective cases have been arrayed accordingly and that the basic dispute relates to right of inheritance or devolution of property belonging to "Midda Singh". The facts which are common to all are being noticed from R.F.A. No. 993 of 1983, which are as hereunder and that the nature of proceedings and the reliefs claimed are being spelt out separately : 2. It shall be apposite to notice the pedigree table of the family which is locked in multifarious judicial proceedings initiated amongst themselves :- 3. It is admitted case that Sucha Singh and Midda Singh two brothers inherited property of their father Gula Singh in equal half share. However, Midda Singh died in the year 1964 and that his wife Punjab Kaur died in the year 1965. There was no issue born out of this wedlock. Sucha Singh died in the year 1975. Jai Kaur wife of Sucha Singh died in the year 1982. Mukhtiar Singh son of Sucha Singh died in the year 1992 and his wife Smt. Dalip Kaur had died in 1988. Bogha Singh son of Sucha Singh died in 1998. The total land held by both the brothers namely Sucha Singh and Midda was 104 Bighas and 11 Biswas. Out of this land 79 Bighas and 16 Biswas was acquired by the Government and the compensation was accordingly awarded. 4. Mukhtiar Kaur appellant in RFA No. 993 of 1983, has made the claim in respect of half share of the compensation on the ground that she is the adopted daughter of Midda Singh. The other half share falling to the lot of Sucha Singh has already been received by Bogha Singh alias Teja Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Sucha Singh. However, in support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon school certificate Ex. A1, wherein she has been shown as daughter of Midda Singh. The other half share falling to the lot of Sucha Singh has already been received by Bogha Singh alias Teja Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Sucha Singh. However, in support of her contention, she has placed reliance upon school certificate Ex. A1, wherein she has been shown as daughter of Midda Singh. She has also placed reliance upon a copy of ex parte judgment dated 15.10.1997, passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda, whereby she has been held to be the daughter of Midda Singh. This claim has been substantiated on the ground that admittedly she is not the real daughter of Midda Singh, but it is her case that she had been adopted by Midda Singh and, therefore, has been shown anywhere and everywhere as daughter of Midda Singh. Further, she has been declared as daughter of Midda Singh by virtue of the declaration granted by Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda while decreeing the suit filed by her. 5. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite side is that the claim of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur having been adopted, is not sustainable under law. A female could not have been adopted because such adoption has been accepted under law only after the passing of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the two judgments of the Lahore High Court rendered in Re: Ram Piari v. Diwan Shiv Ram and another, AIR 1934 Lahore 659, in which it has been held that an adoption of a daughter is unknown to Hindu Law and in Re: Pandit Guran Ditta Mal and others v. Mt. Ram Rakhi and others, AIR 1941 Lahore in which it has been held that Hindu Law does not permit the adoption of a daughter. 6. So far as the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court to the effect that Mukhtiar Kaur is the daughter of Midda Singh is concerned, the same is not est as no such decree could have been granted by way of confirming the factum of adoption, which in itself is not legally tenable. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon such a decree which is not sustainable under law. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon such a decree which is not sustainable under law. It is further the case of the opponents of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur that in the event of adoption by Midda Singh being held not legally sustainable, half share after the death of Midda Singh devolved upon Sucha Singh, the only surviving legal heir, as Midda Singh had died issueless and that his wife also died in the year 1965. In this regard, a copy of the mutation No. 9179, has been brought on record. It is further the contention that Sucha Singh made a gift of some of his property in favour of Dalip Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh and that the said agricultural land stood comprised in Khasra No. 5292/3569, 5296/3571, 5288/3561, entry with regard to which has been made in Ex.P2 which is defined as Farad Inthkhab. The remaining property of Sucha Singh was given to his sons Bogha Singh alias Teja Singh and Mukhtiar Singh by way of registered will dated 26.2.1996. Mukhtiar Singh further sold his share to Teja Singh through a registered sale deed dated May 26, 1976, and in pursuant thereto mutation No. 9179 stood duly sanctioned. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts the claim of Mukhtiar Kaur can be examined under two heads: (i) if she is accepted as legally and validly adopted daughter of Midda Singh, nothing requires to be determined and she would have to be described as the sole owner of half share of Midda Singh and resultantly would become entitled to 50% of the compensation awarded on account of acquisition of the land shown to be belonging jointly to Sucha Singh and Midda Singh and the other property accordingly. (ii) if she is not accepted as adopted daughter of Midda Singh and that the declaration so granted in her favour by way of decreeing the suit is also not acceptable, she would be in a position to claim 1/4th share of the total property of the Sucha Singh and Midda SIngh, as it would be taken that half of Midda Singh devolved upon Sucha Singh. In this context, Mukhtiar Kaur shall have to meet out the situation to the extent as to whether a valid gift had been made in favour of Dalip Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh by Sucha Singh and also after the demise of Sucha Singh, the property described in the registered will executed in favour of Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha Singh was duly inherited by them and that a valid will had been executed. In this context, the RSAs, RFA and the Civil revisions have been required to be decided. The claims made in the respective appeals and the revision need to be noticed separately. R.F.A. No. 993 of 1983 8. This appeal has arisen against the judgment dated February 5, 1983 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda. An application under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 had been filed by Mukhtiar Kaur etc. for claiming half share in the award announced by the Special Land Acquisition Collector on April 18, 1979. The amount awarded was Rs. 1, 13, 659.71. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur claimed half share as daughter of Midda Singh and that the mutation having been sanction on November 9, 1977 in respect of half share of Midda Singh. In this respect Bogha Singh etc. filed civil suit challenging the ownership claimed by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and an ad interim injunction was granted on April 26, 1979 by Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda. It is in pursuant to the dispute of title regarding apportionment and payment of the compensation, reference stood made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the factum of adoption of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur by Midda Singh cannot be accepted because a female was not permitted to be adopted and that the adoption of a daughter was unknown to Hindu Law and even under the Customary Law adoption of a female has not been recognised. She has claimed herself to be 23 years old on the date of making statement on October 7, 1966 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda, when the suit filed by her was decreed. Thus, it is obvious that if the factum of adoption is accepted, she must have been adopted somewhere in 1942 or thereafter. If this order is accepted as correct, thus even upto 1956 she could not have been validly or legally adopted. Thus, it is obvious that if the factum of adoption is accepted, she must have been adopted somewhere in 1942 or thereafter. If this order is accepted as correct, thus even upto 1956 she could not have been validly or legally adopted. Once it is held that the adoption of Mukhtiar Kaur by Midha Singh is wholly illegal then the adoption shall have to be accepted as void and that if any decree is passed by any Court in respect or in pursuant thereof, the same shall be non est in the eyes of law. The Reference Court has held that her adoption as a daughter of Midda Singh is void ab initio, as such, she cannot claim half share of Midda Singh and resultantly is not entitled to half share of the compensation awarded in pursuant to acquisition of the land out of half share of Midda Singh. Being dissatisfied with this judgment of the Reference Court, the aforesaid appeal has been filed. RSA No. 306 of 1984 and X-Objections No. 10-C of 1985. 9. A suit for declaration has been filed by Mukhtiar Singh and four other persons against Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur to the effect that the judgment and decree dated October 15, 1977 rendered in Civil Suit No. 377/159/RT/May 3, 1977, passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda, is illegal, void and ineffective and as such, not binding on their rights. Relief of permanent injunction has also been asked for to restrain Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur from recovering compensation from the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar, regarding acquisition of land measuring 8 Bighas 12 Biswas situated at Bathinda. 10. Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur had earlier filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs restraining them from recovering compensation from the Special Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the land falling to the share of Midda Singh. An ex parte decree dated October 15, 1977 was obtained by her. Plea of the plaintiffs is that they were never ever served in the suit and that fictitious reports regarding service were got made, as such, the Court was also misled and the ex parte decree was passed accordingly. It is also averred that Mukhtiar Kaur wrongly alleged herself to be the daughter of Midda Singh son of Gula Singh, whereas in fact she is the real sister of plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 3. It is also averred that Mukhtiar Kaur wrongly alleged herself to be the daughter of Midda Singh son of Gula Singh, whereas in fact she is the real sister of plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 3. The suit has been contested and it has been alleged that the plaintiffs have already filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree, as such, the suit is liable to be stayed in pursuant to Section 10 of the C.P.C. 11. The suit had been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated July 16, 1981. It has been categorically held that the plaintiffs namely Mukhtiar Singh, Bogha Singh and Dalip Kaur had been duly served and additionally they were served with the interim order of "Status quo", copy of the order has been exhibited as Ex. D5. Shri Teja Singh refused to accept service, as such, positive finding has been returned that they had been duly served. The declaration sought against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 377/159/RT/May 3, 1977 decided on October 15, 1977, has been dismissed. 12. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.7.1981, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The appeal has been partly accepted and that so far as rights of Smt. Surjit Kaur and Teja Singh are concerned, the suit filed qua them has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated October 27, 1983. 13. The present appeal has been filed by Baljinder Singh, Sarabjit Kaur, Bogha Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, husband of late Dalip Kaur and the X-objections have been filed by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur. RSA No. 3325 of 1985 14. A suit for recovery in forma pauper registered as Civil Suit No. 396- A/dated December 24, 1980 has been filed by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur against Mukhtiar Singh, Bogha Singh sons of Sucha Singh. Mukhtiar Kaur claiming herself to be the only daughter of Midda Singh has maintained that she is entiteld to half share of the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs. 2, 02, 727.70. It is alleged that Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha Singh have received the entire compensation by misrepresenting the true facts and thereby caused a loss to Mukhtiar Kaur, who is entitled to half share of the aforesaid compensation amounting to Rs. 1, 01, 364.85. Reliance has been placed upon mutation No. 100090 dated October 15, 1977. 2, 02, 727.70. It is alleged that Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha Singh have received the entire compensation by misrepresenting the true facts and thereby caused a loss to Mukhtiar Kaur, who is entitled to half share of the aforesaid compensation amounting to Rs. 1, 01, 364.85. Reliance has been placed upon mutation No. 100090 dated October 15, 1977. The claim has been contested by Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha SIngh on the ground that she is not the adopted daughter of Midda Singh as no female was entitled to be adopted prior to passing of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. Resultantly, the share of Midda Singh devolved upon Sucha Singh being the only surviving legal heir. Subsequently, a will was executed by Sucha Singh in favour of Bogha Singh and Mukhtiar Singh which was executed and registered on Feb. 26, 1969/March 3, 1969. It is also the case of the defendants that civil Court had passed a judgment and decree in case No. 19/C.M. Dated 10.8.1966 decided on 7.10.1966, holding that Mukhtiar Kaur was not the adopted daughter of Midda Singh, as such, the said decision operates as res judicata against Mukhtiar Kaur. In that very suit, Mukhtiar Kaur had made a statement on October 7, 1966, to the effect that she is not adopted daughter of Midda Singh and that she is the daughter of Sucha Singh. In view of these facts, she is not entitled to claim any portion of the compensation. Mukhtiar Kaur has not been held to be the adopted daughter of Midda Singh, as such, her claim qua the share of the compensation has been declined additionally holding that no compensation having been paid concerning their land described, the question of claiming any share does not arise. Even otherwise, the suit has been dismissed as pre- mature. It has also been held that she has no locus standi to file and maintain the suit as she has not been held to be the adopted daughter of Midda Singh. It is also held, while returning finding on Issue No. 9, that in view of the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not seek any share in the estate of Sucha Singh, as such, determination as to whether the valid registered will had been executed or not does not arise. Resultantly, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.1983. 15. Resultantly, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.1983. 15. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Bathinda, the appeal had been filed before the District Judge Bathinda. The appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.1985, the said judgment and decree has been questioned by way of present appeal filed by Mukhtiar Kaur. RSA No. 2249 of 1984 16. A suit for permanent injunction has been filed by Mukhtiar Kaur registered as Civil Suit No. 619 of 19.12.1981. Plaintiff has claimed that she is the adopted daughter of Midda Singh, as such, is entitled to half share out of the land measuring 104 Bighas and 11 Biswas. It is also stated that upon acquisition of any portion thereof, she is entitled to receive compensation. Some portion out of this land had been acquired and compensation amounting to Rs. 2, 02, 727.70, stood awarded by Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar. It is claimed that she is entitled to half share of the aforesaid compensation. It is alleged that since the aforesaid amount already stood disbursed to the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the regular suit for recovery of half share out of the aforesaid amount. It is alleged that the defendants are trying to recover additional enhanced amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 1, 17, 341.50, which has been deposited by Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar. Somewhat similar pleas have been taken by the defendants. It has been held by the trial Court that despite the mutation having been sanctioned in respect of the property described, it does not confer any title. It is also held that she has failed to prove the fact that she is the adopted daughter of Midda Singh, as such, there is no question of her being accepted as owner of the property. Her ownership travels from Midda Singh but she has not been held to be the adopted daughter, therefore, not entitled to be termed as the owner of the said property. Resultantly, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated July 22, 1983. 17. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appeal had been filed which had been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated August 14, 1984, by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Resultantly, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated July 22, 1983. 17. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appeal had been filed which had been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated August 14, 1984, by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. This appeal has been filed by Mukhtiar Kaur challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. Civil Revision No. 271 of 1988 18. A portion of the land belonging to the shares of Sucha Singh and Midda Singh stood acquired and the compensation paid in respect thereof was challenged and that subsequently by virtue of judgment rendered in LPA No. 353/CM 843/1982 in RFA No. 1726 of 1980 decided on 27.11.1981, RFA No. 1842 of 1980 decided on 11.10.1981 and LPA No. 279 of 1982 decided on 8.12.1982 in which Bogha Singh alias Teja Singh and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Sucha Singh were shown at Serial No. 87 of the list so appended. By virtue of such enhancement, an amount of Rs. 6, 14, 488.62, along with interest upto date became payable to them. In this regard an application was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda registered as CM No. 177 of December 21, 1987. Objection petition was filed by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur who resisted the grant of payment of the aforesaid claimed amount on the basis of the order dated 7.4.1986 passed by G.C. Mital, J. in C.R. No. 3766 of 1985 titled as Mukhtiar Kaur v. Union of India. However, the aforesaid amount was ordered to be paid to the aforesaid claimants in accordance with orders dated January 12, 1987, passed by G.C. Mital, J. in C.M. No. 3217 of 1987, CM No. 2095 of 1987 in RSA No. 2249 of 1984, refund vouchers in the sum of Rs. 6, 14, 288.62 were ordered to be issued in favour of the claimants i.e. Teja Singh alias Bogha Singh and Mukhtiar Singh subject to furnishing security bond in the sum of Rs. 7 lacs, this order dated 21.12.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda, has been made the subject matter of challenge by Mukhtiar Kaur in the aforesaid civil revision. 19. 7 lacs, this order dated 21.12.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda, has been made the subject matter of challenge by Mukhtiar Kaur in the aforesaid civil revision. 19. After noticing the facts and the reliefs claimed in the aforesaid cases, which have been filed by or against the parties almost common in all the cases, I find that all the parties have staked their claim to the half share of Midda Singh. So far as the right to property of Midda Singh is concerned, undisputedly the same has not been disputed by anyone. Admittedly, Midda Singh died issueless in the year 1964 and his wife Punjab Kaur died in 1965. It is at this stage the race commenced between Sucha Singh and his progenies. Out of the four children of Sucha Singh, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur has staked her claim to the half share in the property, which admittedly fell to the lot of Midda Singh. This claim has been made on the basis that she had been adopted by Midda Singh and that being the adopted daughter, she is entitled to claim half share of the property in exclusion of Sucha Singh and his other progenies. In this context she had filed a Civil Suit No. 388/159/RT dated May 3, 1977, and an ex parte decree was granted in her favour vide judgment and decree dated October 15, 1977. In the said suit, it has been alleged by her that she is the adopted daughter of Midda Singh but no date of adoption has been given but by noticing the fact that Midda Singh died in the year 1964 and his wife Punjab Kaur died in the year 1965, she must have been adopted prior thereto. However, it has come on record that she was almost one year old when she was adopted by Midda Singh and that the said statement is stated to have been made in the year 1966, when a declaratory suit had been filed for establishing the factum of adoption. Thus, admittedly she is stated to have been adopted prior to the passing of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Mukhtiar Kaur got the mutation sanctioned in her favour in the year 1977 on the basis of the ex parte decree granted in her favour in respect of the agricultural property which fell to the lot of Midda Singh in half share. 20. Mukhtiar Kaur got the mutation sanctioned in her favour in the year 1977 on the basis of the ex parte decree granted in her favour in respect of the agricultural property which fell to the lot of Midda Singh in half share. 20. The progeny of Sucha Singh felt aggrieved of such act on the part of Mukhtiar Kaur, resultantly, civil suit No. 96 of 26.4.1979/RT 67 of 7.7.1980 was filed by them seeking a declaration that the ex parte decree dated October 15, 1977, has been obtained fraudulently and that Mukhtiar Singh, Bogha Singh and Surjit Kaur were never served. The suit was dismissed and the said judgment and decree was challenged by way of an appeal which was partly accepted by holding that Surjit Kaur and Bogha Singh had not been properly served. Mukhtiar Singh filed RSA against the said judgment and Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed cross-objections in the said appeal. 21. It shall be apposite to notice that wherever the claim could be made in respect of the share having fallen to the lot of Midda Singh, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur filed civil suits and also claimed reference for claiming half share of the compensation in respect of the land which stood acquired by the Government. Her claim has always been that being the adopted daughter of Midda Singh she is entitled to all such claims equivalent to the share of Midda Singh. The trial Courts and the reference Court have come to a consistent finding that the alleged adoption of Mukhtiar Kaur by Midda Singh is not sustainable under law. The observations are that prior to 1956 a female could not be adopted and the facts which are discernible from the record, it is established that the alleged adoption was made prior to the aforesaid act and, therefore, not admissible/sustainable under law. Since the very adoption is void ab initio, no right could be claimed by her. She has been not suited with regard to her claim on this ground alone. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments which have been mentioned above. 22. The argument is that under Hindu Law prior to 1956, adoption of a daughter was unknown and not permitted, as such, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur could not and cannot claim herself to be the legal heir of Midda Singh. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments which have been mentioned above. 22. The argument is that under Hindu Law prior to 1956, adoption of a daughter was unknown and not permitted, as such, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur could not and cannot claim herself to be the legal heir of Midda Singh. Even the decree granted in her favour on the premises that she is the adopted daughter of Midda Singh is a nullity and could not be given effect to and could be acted upon. Thus, the sanctioning of mutation in pursuant thereto is also not sustainable. In this regard, relicance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Re: Chet Singh v. State of Punjab, etc., 1977 Cur. L.J. (Civil) (S.C.) 281. The dicta is that an order passed against the mandatory provisions of law, is a nullity and can be ignored as non est. The argument is that on the basis of non est judgment and decree, no mutation could have been sanctioned and that if sanctioned is not sustainable under law. 23. Second argument is that if she cannot be accepted as the adopted daughter of Midda Singh, she is admittedly the daughter of Sucha Singh, therefore, is entitled to at least 1/4th share out of the total property, as it shall be assumed that the half share of Midda Singh devolved upon Sucha Singh, being the only surviving legal heir of Midda Singh. 24. On the other hand, learned counsel for the legal heir of Mukhtiar Singh, Bogha Singh and Surjit Kaur has contended that no such plea has been taken by Mukhtiar Kaur before the trial Court and to the contrary a statement had been made by counsel before the trial court that she shall not claim any share out of the estate of Sucha Singh. Apart from this, it is contended that Sucha Singh had gifted some of his property to Smt. Dalip Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh and that property was comprised in Khasra No. 5292/3569, 5296/3571 and 5288/3561 and in this regard the mutation was duly sanctioned in favour of Smt. Dalip Kaur. It is further contended that the remaining property was willed away in favour of Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha Singh and that the said will was registered on February 26, 1969. It is further contended that the remaining property was willed away in favour of Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha Singh and that the said will was registered on February 26, 1969. It is disclosed that Sucha Singh died in 1975 and that the said land stood mutated in favour of Mukhtiar Singh and Bogha Singh. Thus, in view of these facts, Mukhtiar Kaur is not entitled to any claim whatsoever in the property including the compensation. 25. Learned counsel for the Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur has not been able to address any cogent argument and he has not been able to establish that adoption of Mukhtiar Kaur by Midda Singh is a legal adoption in any manner. An effort has been made contending that in view of the affidavit and her own statement, her adoption is admittedly made after 1956 and, therefore, a valid adoption. 26. I am afraid this contention is not sustainable. She has herself admitted that she was about one year old when she was adopted by Midda Singh and at that time i.e. in the year 1966, she was 23 years old. Resultantly, she must have been adopted in the year 1943/1944. Thus, admittedly prior to 1956 Act. Under Hindu Law, adoption of a female could not be made because as per Hindu Law prescriptions a daughter could not be given/taken in adoption. It shall also be apposite to notice that she had also made a statement while withdrawing one of the suits on the ground that she is not the adopted daughter of Midda Singh and that she is daughter of Sucha Singh. It looks that upon evidence she has made an effort in the first instance to stake her claim on complete half share of Midda Singh by setting up the story of adoption by Midda Singh. Alternatively an effort has been made to claim her share as daughter of Sucha Singh as well. Unfortunately, neither the gift deed made in favour of Dalip Kaur has been challenged nor the registered will executed by Sucha Singh in favour of beneficiaries namely Bogha Singh and Mukhtiar Singh has been questioned. learned counsel for the Mukhtiar Kaur has not been able to throw any light in this regard. 27. Unfortunately, neither the gift deed made in favour of Dalip Kaur has been challenged nor the registered will executed by Sucha Singh in favour of beneficiaries namely Bogha Singh and Mukhtiar Singh has been questioned. learned counsel for the Mukhtiar Kaur has not been able to throw any light in this regard. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur cannot be accepted as adopted daughter of Midda Singh, even if it is assumed and presumed that the ceremonies required in respect thereof were duly performed but legally no such adoption could be made and, therefore, the judgment and the decree passed in pursuant thereto would be non est in the eyes of law and, therefore, cannot be allowed to be taken benefit of by way of acting thereon i.e. mutations so sanctioned in pursuant to the said decree would also not be sustainable. 28. The alternative relief to the extent of 1/4th share, being the progeny of Sucha Singh, is also not sustainable. Admittedly, portion of the property stood gifted to Smt. Dalip Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh by way of execution of gift deed by Sucha Singh, which has not been questioned by anyone. So far as the balance property of Sucha Singh is concerned a will is stated to have been executed on 26.2.1969 and was registered on 7.3.1969 and that will also has not been questioned by any one. Resultantly, the fate of the aforesaid cases is as under :- i) RSA No. 2249 of 1984, filed by Mukhtiar Kaur, has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Similarly, RSA No. 3325 of 1985 filed by Mukhtiar Kaur also stands dismissed. ii) RSA No. 306 of 1984, filed by Mukhtiar Singh, is allowed and that he shall also not be affected by any ex parte decree dated 15.10.1977 which is declared null and void. Resultantly, X-objections No. 10-C of 1985, filed by Mukhtiar Kaur, are dismissed. iii) Civil Revisions No. 271 of 1988 and 3412 of 2000, filed by Mukhtiar Kaur are not sustainable and the same are dismissed. vi) RFA No. 993 of 1983 filed by Mukhtiar Kaur has no merit as Mukhtiar Kaur is not entitled to claim any reference and resultantly no compensation is payable to her. Order accordingly.