JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai, J. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are whether a male or female of more than 15 years age can be adopted and whether there is a custom amongst the members of Valmiki caste or community permitting adoption of a person above 15 years of age? 2. This Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.12.2008. The facts of the case in brief are that mother of the appellant Smt.Hamuben Amrutbhai Chauhan was working as Sweeper and was a permanent employee with respondent No.2 department with effect from 1.1.1978. She died in harness while in service on 23.12.2007. Her son Harshadkumar had died earlier on 22.11.2004. Smt.Hamuben had two daughters who were married. According to the case of the appellant, he was adopted by Smt.Hamuben and her husband Chandubhai Chauhan by a registered adoption deed executed between the family on 10.7.2006. After one year of the adoption, Smt.Hamuben died. The appellant on 1.5.2008 applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The authorities have rejected the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which lays down that a Hindu male above the age of 15 years cannot be adopted. Admittedly, the appellant was aged 23 years at the time of adoption. The authorities on 22.9.2008 as well as the learned Single Judge on 24.12.2008 has dismissed the claim for compassionate appointment of the appellant and held that the appellant is not eligible to claim appointment on compassionate ground as he was not the legally adopted son of late Smt.Hamuben and further husband of Hamuben, Chandubhai Chauhan was still alive. 3. We have heard Shri C.B. Dastoor, learned counsel for the appellant. Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, (for short, "the Act") in section 4 (a) provides that any custom or usage as part of that law prior to the commencement of the Act has ceased to have effect with regard to any matter for which provision has been made in Chapter II, except clause (iii) an (iv) of section 10 of the Act. Section 5 provides that no adoption shall be made under the Act by a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any adoption made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void. Section 5 provides that no adoption shall be made under the Act by a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and any adoption made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void. Section 10 is extracted below: "10. Persons who may be adopted - No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: - (i) he or she is a Hindu; (ii) he or she has not already been adopted; (iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption; (iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption." From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that for adoption, a person should be a Hindu and had not earlier been adopted. A married male or female above fifteen years of age cannot be adopted unless there was a custom or usage applicable to the caste or community which permits the person who have completed the age of fifteen years for being taken in adoption. 4. In the instant case, the appellant claims that he belongs to Valmiki caste and community and there was the custom and usage for adoption of males over 15 years. In support of his contention, the appellant has annexed at Annexure-I,an undated certificate issued by the Managing Trustee of Jay Jagadamba Yuvak Mandal Trust (Valmiki Samaj), Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. On this certificate there is no seal of the person or authority who had issued the certificate though it bears signature of the Managing Trustee. The certificate states that a Valmiki community member can adopt a person who is major and above 15 years of age and this custom had been prevailing since long. The question which arises is whether this certificate could be treated as proof of customary usage prevailing in Valmiki community which permits to adopt persons over 15 years of age. As noted earlier, this certificate does not bear any date or seal though it mentions the month and year as 'July 2007'. 5. The question which arises is whether this certificate could be treated as proof of customary usage prevailing in Valmiki community which permits to adopt persons over 15 years of age. As noted earlier, this certificate does not bear any date or seal though it mentions the month and year as 'July 2007'. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Atluri Brahmanandam v.Anne Sai Bapuji 2010 (12) SCALE 157 and Kondiba Rama Papal v.Narayan Kondiba Papal (1991)2 SCC 218 . In Atluri Brahmanandam's case the Apex Court found that in the registered adoption deed it was recited that adoption was being made in accordance with the customs prevailing in the "Kamma" community in Andhra Pradesh. It was proved in the trial court by oral evidence. In the cross-examination no challenge was made to the validity or legality of the document and registered adoption deed went unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, the Court under section 16 of the Act presumed that the adoption was made in compliance of the provisions of the Act. The Court further found that a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the year 1964 had recognised that there was a custom amongst the members of the "Kamma" caste to adopt a boy of more than 15 years. A Court can take judicial notice of a custom and when a custom has been repeatedly recognised by Courts, it is blended into the law of land and proof of the same would become unnecessary under section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 6. In the case in hand we find that there is no recital in the registered adoption deed dated 10.7.2006 that there was a custom amongst the members of "Valmiki" caste and community to adopt a person who is more than 15 years of age, therefore, presumption provided by section 16 of the Act is not available to the appellant. 7. In Kondiba Rama Papal's case the Apex Court has held that the custom which is judicially recognised of a caste or community, it is not required to be independently proved and adoption of a person cannot be challenged on the ground that the adopted person had completed 15 years of age at the time of adoption. 8. 7. In Kondiba Rama Papal's case the Apex Court has held that the custom which is judicially recognised of a caste or community, it is not required to be independently proved and adoption of a person cannot be challenged on the ground that the adopted person had completed 15 years of age at the time of adoption. 8. Section 3(a) of the Act defined the expression 'custom and usage' as a rule which had been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time and has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family. But it should not be unreasonable or opposed to public policy. A custom is required to be proved in accordance with law. A custom in order to be binding must derive its force from the fact that by long usage it has obtained the force of law. It is necessary to prove that the usage has been acted upon in practice for a long period amongst the members of a particular caste or community. A custom may be proved by general evidence. The custom being against the provisions of the Act, the person who sets up his claim on the basis of such custom must prove it by clear and cogent evidence. 9. Even judicial decisions furnish reliable instances in which custom had been recognized. Oral and documentary evidence would be relevant material to prove or disprove the custom. 10. In the present case, except filing the certificate issued by Jagadamba Yuvak Mandal Trust (Valmiki Samaj), no other material has been brought on record to establish that there was any custom prevailing in the Valmiki caste or community that a male above 15 years could be adopted. This certificate does not inspire confidence as it is undated and it is without any seal and without any affidavit of the person issuing it. Apart from the aforesaid certificate, no evidence has been filed to prove the custom in Valmiki caste or community with regard to adoption. Therefore, we do not find any reliable material on record to hold that there was a custom prevailing in Valmiki caste or community for adopting a male above 15 years. 11. Apart from the aforesaid certificate, no evidence has been filed to prove the custom in Valmiki caste or community with regard to adoption. Therefore, we do not find any reliable material on record to hold that there was a custom prevailing in Valmiki caste or community for adopting a male above 15 years. 11. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to prove and establish that there was a custom amongst the members of Valmiki caste and community to adopt a person over 15 years of age. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 22.9.2008. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the authorities dated 22.9.2008 as well as the learned Single Judge on 24.12.2008. The appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.