Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. This is second appeal by plaintiff Ram Kishan, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Ram Kishan appellant filed suit against Krishan Parkash-defendant (since deceased and represented by respondents as legal representatives). Both plaintiff and defendant are natural sons of Mange Ram. The plaintiff claimed that he was adopted by Mange Rams brother Badle Ram vide adoption deed dated 07.01.1948, registered on 17.01.1948. The dispute is regarding the land of Badle Ram. The plaintiff alleged that in view of adoption, he was the sole legal heir of Badle Ram. Defendant, however, claimed Will dated 19.12.1985 executed by Badle Ram in his favour and accordingly, defendant has become owner of the suit land, which was previously owned by Badle Ram. 3. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006, dismissed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff as well as cross-objections filed therein by the defendant stand dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that adoption of plaintiff by Badle Ram took place before coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short - Adoption Act) and since the parties belong to District Sonepat (old District Rohtak), they are covered by Customary Law and consequently, the plaintiff could not be disinherited by adoptive father Badle Ram on the ground of his misconduct. It is contended that vide Will dated 19.12.1985, executed by Badle Ram in favour of defendant, Badle Ram disinherited the plaintiff on account of his alleged misconduct. Reference has been made to paragraph 51 of the Customary Law in Ratti- gans Digest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in view of Section 13 of the Adoption Act, an adoption does not deprive adoptive father or mother of the power to dispose of his or her property by transfer inter vivos or by Will. It was contended that Badle Ram died long after coming into force the Adoption Act and therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Adoption Act, Badle Ram was not deprived of the power to transfer his property by Will. 6. It was contended that Badle Ram died long after coming into force the Adoption Act and therefore, in view of Section 13 of the Adoption Act, Badle Ram was not deprived of the power to transfer his property by Will. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the plaintiff has also inherited half share in the property of his natural father Mange Ram along with defendant, who inherited the other half share and consequently, the plaintiff, on the basis of being adopted son of Badle Ram, cannot claim inheritance of property of Badle Ram. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence, as to whether Mange Ram-natural father of the parties, died before or after the death of Badle Ram and if Mange Ram died after the death of Badle Ram, the appellant could inherit the property of his natural father Mange Ram as well, besides having inherited the property of his adoptive father Badle Ram. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. It is undisputed that plaintiff-appellant, as natural son of Mange Ram, has inherited half share in his property along with defendant, who inherited the other half share. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellant cannot claim inheritance of property of Badle Ram being his adopted son. Date of death of Mange Ram-natural father of the parties, whether he died before or after the death of Badle Ram, is irrelevant. If there was valid adoption of appellant by Bad}e Ram, the said adoption was irrevocable and even after the death of adoptive father, the adoption could not be revoked in any situation. In fact, paragraph 51 of the Rattigans Digest on Customary Law, relied on by counsel for the appellant himself, also states that adoption cannot be revoked subsequently. Adoption Act also lays down a similar provision in Section 15 thereof. It is thus apparent that if the appellant had been adopted by Badle Ram, the appellant could not have inherited the property of Mange Ram as his natural son. However, since the-plaintiff inherited half share in the property of his natural father Mange Ram, the plaintiff cannot claim inheritance in the property of Badle Ram being his adopted son. 10. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the other contentions raised by counsel for the parties are not required to be adjudicated upon. 11. However, since the-plaintiff inherited half share in the property of his natural father Mange Ram, the plaintiff cannot claim inheritance in the property of Badle Ram being his adopted son. 10. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the other contentions raised by counsel for the parties are not required to be adjudicated upon. 11. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the other contentions raised by counsel for the parties are not required to be adjudicated upon. 12. From the aforesaid conclusion, it becomes apparent that the plaintiff-appellant cannot succeed. Will in favour of the defendant respondent, executed by Badle Ram, has been proved and has not been challenged in the instant second appeal. In view of the said Will, which has been duly proved, defendant has inherited the property of Badle Ram. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.