Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were sole owners with possession of the land measuring 49 kanals 19 marlas was dismissed. 2. One Narain Singh was owner of the suit land. He had three daughters, namely, Dhan Kaur, Sadan Kaur and Nikko. After the death of Narain Singh, his estate was inherited by Gurbachan Singh, son of Nikko. The dispute in the present appeal is to the inheritance after the death of Gurbachan Singh. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Dhan Kaur and Sadan Kaur whereas the defendants are the other son and daughter of Nikko, Gurbanchan Singh had died unmarried and issueless. 3. The plaintiffs have claimed for ownership of the entire land on the ground that Gurbachan Singh was adopted by Narain Singh vide adoption deed Ex.P. 15 dated 16.12.1921 and, thus, as sisters of deceased Gurbachan Singh, they have preferential rights of inheritance than the legal heirs of Nikko who will not take equal share with the plaintiffs. The defendants contested suit and denied adoption of Gurbachan Singh by Narain Singh. 4. The suit was dismissed by the Courts below, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove adoption deed dated 16.12.1921 and that in previous judgment Ex.D3 dated 24.3.2006 B.K. there was a finding that there was no valid adoption of Gurbachan Singh by Narain Singh. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the finding that there was no valid adoption of Gurbachan Singh vide adoption deed Ex.P.15 dated 16.12.1921 is, factually, incorrect. It is argued that vide aforesaid order Ex.DS, the First Appellate court in appeal against the order dated 24.3.2003 has remanded the matter for fresh decision with the direction to determine the issue who is preferential heir of Narain Singh. It was also directed that whether the plaintiffs i.e. Inder Singh and Kher Singh, brother of Narain Singh consented to the adoption deed thereby binding on the plaintiff be framed and evidence taken and, thereafter, decision should be arrived at. The said direction was given after returning a finding that the adoption deed was only paper adoption which was never acted upon during the life time or after the death of Narain Singh. The said direction was given after returning a finding that the adoption deed was only paper adoption which was never acted upon during the life time or after the death of Narain Singh. After holding so, the finding recorded by the trial Court was reversed holding that no such adoption as a matter of fact has been established. It is contended that after remand, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30.5.1950, Ex.D4 found that the adoption deed was executed and adoption of daughters son among the carpenters is valid after holding that the defendant was adopted by Narain Singh. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on 19.3.1951. Ex.D5. However, in appeal it was found that the adoption of Gurbachan Singh is not a proved. The Court proceeded to decide whether the defendant can claim property on the basis of adoption deed Ex.DA or as a deed of alienation in his favour after the death of Narain Singh. The Court held that Gurbachan Singh has no such right. The Court found that the parties are governed by Hindu Law and not by custom and that the defendant Gurbachan Singh as daughters son will exclude nephews and Mst. Roori nephews mother of Narain Singh. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs are not party in the previous litigation and, therefore, the finding recorded therein are not binding on the plaintiffs. The said argument is of no help to the appellants inasmuch as Gurbachan Singh has succeeded to the estate of Narain Singh under Hindu Law prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In fact, the judgment Ex.05 recognizing Gurbachan Singh as heir of Narain Singh under Hindu Law is dated 19.3.1951, Gurbachan Singh was absolute owner of the property at the time of commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . The plaintiff, daughter of Narain Singh, prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the finding recorded in previous litigation was not binding on plaintiff but it proves the fact that Gurbachan Singh succeeded to the property of Narain Singh prior to commencement of 1956 Act. 7. There is no evidence or proof that Gurbachan Singh natural son of Nikko was adopted by Narain Singh in respect of which the adoption deed was executed on 16.12.1921. 7. There is no evidence or proof that Gurbachan Singh natural son of Nikko was adopted by Narain Singh in respect of which the adoption deed was executed on 16.12.1921. The original adoption deed has not been produced. It has been found that the admissibility of document more than 30 years old under Section 90 of the Evidence Act does not apply to certified copy. The original adoption deed is not available on record and there is no independent evidence to prove adoption of Gurbachan Singh in respect of which the adoption deed was executed. Therefore, I do not find that the finding that Gurbachan Singh was not adopted by Narain Singh is suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. No other point is urged. 8. Once Gurbachan is not found to be adopted son of Narain Singh, the estate of Gurbachan Singh would be inherited by his legal heirs who are nearest heirs than the plaintiffs. 9. In view of the above, the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal.