JUDGMENT 1. :- This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment & decree dated 31/3/1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur whereby, he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment & decree dated 15/1/1981 passed by Munsiff Magistrate, Dausa whereby, he decreed the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1-Gokul for declaration and injunction. 2. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1-Nathu (who died during pendency of the suit and was substituted by his daughter) and his younger brother Ghasi had no son. As they wanted to adopt a son, Nathu and Ghasi therefore persuaded to Sheonarayan, natural father of the plaintiff, who was closely related to them, to give his son Gokul in their adoption. Sheonarayan agreed to give his son Gokul in their adoption on the condition that both the brothers would give all their property to him after their death and that they would not take any other person in their adoption and that they would not further part with the property to any one. Both the brothers accepted the proposal. Plaintiff-Gokul was taken in adoption by Nathu and Ghasi in presence of relatives and other responsible persons of the village and panchas of nearby villages. His adoption took place according to Hindu custom and rites on 10th Jeth Badi of Samwat (Hindu Calendar year) 2025. Nathu and defendant No. 2-Smt. Bachchi, widow of Ghasi, declared the plaintiff as their son. Immediately thereafter, adoption-deed was prepared by Kajodmal Patwari. Ghasi put signature on that deed and Nathu put the thumb impression. Panchas also made their signatures as witness to the Will. Adoption-deed was read over to Sheonarayan, natural father of plaintiff Gokul. Adoption-deed was filed along with the plaint. Nathu and Ghasi both executed a Will ten days after adoption on 24/3/1969. This Will was registered. In the Will, he bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff left the house of his natural father and started living with Nathu, Ghasi and defendant No. 2-Bachchi as their son. Nathu and his brother Ghasi arranged his marriage. Defendant No. 2-Bachchi also participated in his marriage. 3. It was further pleaded in the plaint that Ghasi expired in 2006. All his last rites were performed by the plaintiff according to hindu customs. Pagadi ceremony was also done in his name accepting plaintiff as the son. Nathu and his brother Ghasi arranged his marriage. Defendant No. 2-Bachchi also participated in his marriage. 3. It was further pleaded in the plaint that Ghasi expired in 2006. All his last rites were performed by the plaintiff according to hindu customs. Pagadi ceremony was also done in his name accepting plaintiff as the son. Plaintiff became owner of the entire properties of Ghasi. One and a half months before filing the suit, defendant No. 2-Bachchi had some dispute with natural father & mother of plaintiff-Gokul. Enemies of the plaintiff mislead defendants No. 1 & 2, who thereupon started ill-treating the plaintiff and his wife. Under the influence of these unscrupulous elements, defendants No. 1 & 2 got another Will executed in favour of the defendant No. 3-Badri with a view to getting the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 cancelled. The plaintiff submitted an objection before the registering authority. The Will was impounded and was sent to Collector Stamps. An adoption-deed was prepared on 3/3/1970 with the stipulation that defendant No. 1 had already taken defendant No. 3 in adoption fifteen years ago. It was got registered with Sub-Registrar Lalsot on 7/3/1970. Prayer was therefore made in the suit that the Will dated 18/2/1970 and adoption-deed dated 3/3/1970 be set-aside and declaration be made that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit entire property of the defendants after the death of Ghasi, husband of defendant No. 2-Smt. Bachchi, on the strength of Will/family arrangement dated 24/3/1969 and it be further declared that defendants No. 1 and 2 had no right to transfer the property in favour of any other person. 4. Defendants-appellants filed written statement denying all the allegations in plaint. It was pleaded in the additional plea that neither defendant No. 1 took the plaintiff in adoption nor any written document was prepared, as alleged. Written document, if any, produced by the plaintiff, is fabricated one, which was never executed in the lifetime of Ghasi. The plaintiff thus had no right or interest in the property of defendant No. 1 and his younger brother. Defendant No. 1 has taken defendant No. 3 in adoption in accordance with the prevalent customs. Defendant No. 3 was adopted as son of defendant No. 1. 5. Trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as ten issues. Defendant No. 1 has taken defendant No. 3 in adoption in accordance with the prevalent customs. Defendant No. 3 was adopted as son of defendant No. 1. 5. Trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as ten issues. After recording evidence of the parties, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 15/1/1981 with costs whereby, plaintiff-Gokul was declared adopted son of Nathu and Ghasi and the Will dated 18/2/1970 as well as adoption-deed dated 3/3/1970 executed in favour of Badri were declared null and void and defendants were restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the movable and immovable property bequeathed to the plaintiff vide Will (Exh. A.1) and from transferring or alienating the same. 6. Defendant No. 3-Badri filed appeal before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur assailing the judgment & decree of the trial court dated 15/1/1981, who vide judgment & decree dated 31/3/1986 partly allowed the appeal and affirmed the judgment & decree of the trial court dated 15/1/1981 only to the extent of declaring plaintiff-Gokul as the adopted son of Nathu. 7. This appeal was admitted to hearing on 14/4/1986 on the following substantial questions of law:- "(A) Whether the adoption of a same boy by two brothers is valid and if not whether the adoption is invalid for each of them? "(B) Whether the adoption of Badri is proved in accordance with law and whether the findings given by courts below with regard to adoption of Badri is perverse? "(C) Whether Ghasi was entitled to make Will of joint family property? 8. I have heard Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants and Shri Rajesh Kapoor, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. 9. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has argued that the courts below have erred in holding that plaintiff-Gokul was adopted son of Nathu. Case of the plaintiff throughout was that he was adopted by both the brothers, Nathu and Ghasi. All the witnesses, which the plaintiff has produced, claimed to have joined the ceremony namely; Kajodmal (PW1), Nandram (PW2), Shri Narayan (PW3), Kishan Chander (PW4), Rampal (PW5), Sheonarayan(PW6) and Gokul (PW7)-plaintiff himself. The trial court on that basis held him adopted son of both the brothers. The lower appellate court had no justification to hold that plaintiff-Gokul was adopted son of Nathu. The trial court on that basis held him adopted son of both the brothers. The lower appellate court had no justification to hold that plaintiff-Gokul was adopted son of Nathu. Though, Nathu and Ghasi were brothers but the law does not permit taking a single boy in adoption by two brothers simultaneously. Learned counsel argued that the Will dated 18/2/1970 and adoption-deed dated 3/3/1970 lawfully executed by defendants No. 1 & 2, Nathu and Mst. Bachchi, widow of Ghasi, in favour of defendant No. 3-Badri, could not have been declared void or ineffective against plaintiff. The will dated 18/2/1970 executed by Nathu in favour of defendant No. 3-Badri has been admitted by Nathu himself in his written statement. Properties of Nathu would therefore devolve upon Badri. Both the courts below have examined the evidence in a cursory manner to hold that adoption of Badri has not been proved. His adoption-deed was executed on 3/3/1970. First appellate court misdirected itself in recording the finding that Badri is not adopted son of Nathu. Nathu himself accepted him as his son. Defendant-Bholi, the real daughter of Nathu also admitted adoption of defendant No. 3-Badri. Bhorya (DW1), Hurbux (DW2), Rampal (DW3), Raghunath (DW4) and Mst. Bachchi (DW9) have fully proved ceremony of give and take in the course of adoption of Badri. 10. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel further argued that Nathu had by subsequent Will in favour of defendant-Badri, revoked the earlier, therefore the Will dated 24/3/1969 is void. A person can execute as many Wills as he likes during his lifetime. Since the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 was revoked, the later Will dated 18/2/1970 would become enforceable on death of Nathu. It is argued that legality of the Will dated 18/2/1970 could not have been questioned because that Will or even a copy thereof, was not produced in evidence by the plaintiff. It was a registered Will, which the appellants have now filed before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. 11. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants further submitted that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the "Act of 1956") does not permit adoption of one child by two persons i.e. two fathers and two mothers simultaneously. What was pleaded in the plaint, was that adoption took place as per the Hindu customs and rites. 11. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants further submitted that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the "Act of 1956") does not permit adoption of one child by two persons i.e. two fathers and two mothers simultaneously. What was pleaded in the plaint, was that adoption took place as per the Hindu customs and rites. Plaintiff during trial sought to shift this stand by contending that adoption of one child by two brothers is permissible as per the customs prevalent in Meena community. The same would therefore be saved. Most of the witnesses of the plaintiff have merely proved adoption and not customs. Nandram (PW2) has also given similar instance of one Kishan Chand Patel of Village Jhonpra but did not give any details about such adoption. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not attend any such ceremony. None of those persons in whose presence the ceremony took place was produced in evidence. Neither the plaintiff-Gokul appearing as PW7 nor his father Sheonarayan as PW6, narrated anything about the customs in the Meena community. Findings recorded to that effect are therefore completely without any basis. When evidence that was produced intended to prove simultaneous adoption of the plaintiff by two brothers, the first appellate court could not have while partly allowing the appeal, held that adoption by atleast one brother shall be considered valid. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments placed reliance on judgment of the Privy Council in Dhanraj Joharmal v. Soni, AIR 1925, Privy Council 118 and judgments of this Court in Mt. Gulab v. Devilal Gokal Chand, AIR (38) 1951 Rajasthan 136 & Hukam Singh and others v. Ganesh Kanwar and another, I.L.R. 1960 (10) 1143 . It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 12. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Kapoor, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents opposed the appeal and argued that subsequent Will dated 18/2/1970 and adoption-deed dated 3/3/1970 executed in favour of defendant-appellant No. 1-Badri, has not been proved. Nathu has not even been produced in evidence. He died almost a year after alleged execution of that Will. Smt. Bachchi, widow of Ghasi, was produced by the defendants as DW9. She has denied having taken Badri in adoption. She also denied that Badri ever lived with her. She has admitted the adoption of plaintiff-Gokul by her husband Ghasi and his elder brother Nathu. He died almost a year after alleged execution of that Will. Smt. Bachchi, widow of Ghasi, was produced by the defendants as DW9. She has denied having taken Badri in adoption. She also denied that Badri ever lived with her. She has admitted the adoption of plaintiff-Gokul by her husband Ghasi and his elder brother Nathu. It is argued that defendant-appellants in written statement have not made any mention of the alleged Will dated 18/2/1970 alleged to have been executed by Nathu in favour of Badri. Though Bholi, daughter of Nathu, has joined as defendant-appellant No. 6 in the present appeal but she withdrew her appeal. This appeal is therefore restricted only with respect to defendant-appellants No. 1 to 5. 13. Shri Rajesh Kapoor, learned counsel has taken the court through the judgments passed by the trial court and the first appellate court and argued that findings recorded therein are based on correct reading of the statements of the witnesses by both the sides. The written document of adoption was prepared by Kajodmal, which was signed by deceased-Ghasi, and Nathu has put his thumb impression. The impugned-judgments do not require any interference by this Court. The appeal be therefore dismissed. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully studied the record and the cited case law. 15. Plaintiff-Gokul in para 2 of the plaint has pleaded that his natural mother and father, gave him (plaintiff) in adoption to defendant No. 1-Nathu on 10th Jeth Badi of Samwat (Hindu Calendar year) 2025 as per Hindu customs and rites. Defendant No. 2-Smt. Bachchi and her husband Ghasi declared on that day that they would also treat the plaintiff as their son and they would neither take any other person in adoption nor transfer their properties in favour of any third person. Defendant-appellants however have denied the averment of para 2 of the plaint in written statement and have pleaded in additional pleas that plaintiff was never taken in adoption nor any ceremony was held with regard thereto nor any written document was prepared. Kajodmal (PW1) deposed that Gokul was put into the lap of Nathu and his wife by his natural father Sheonarayan, who said that now onwards, Gokul was their son. Ghasi and his wife also declared him to be their son. Kajodmal (PW1) deposed that Gokul was put into the lap of Nathu and his wife by his natural father Sheonarayan, who said that now onwards, Gokul was their son. Ghasi and his wife also declared him to be their son. Written document was prepared in presence of about forty persons, who were present there and Nathu and Ghasi arranged marriage of Gokul. Nandram (PW2) has also stated that Gokul was put into the lap of Nathu by Sheonarayan, who stated that now onwards he was son of Nathu. And Nathu also acknowledged this fact. A written document Exh. 1 was also prepared by Kajodmal, which was signed by Nathu and Ghasi put thumb impression. Ghasi and his wife also acknowledged to have taken Gokul in adoption. Gokul thereafter stayed with both the brothers. It is this witness only, who has stated that in Meena community if two brothers are issueless, they can take one child in adoption, who can inherit properties of both of them. He gave instance of one Kishan Chand Patel of Village Jhonpra in which case also, two brothers have taken one boy in adoption. Though he mentioned the instance of Kishan Chand Patel of Village Jhonpra but no particulars thereabout were given and no other witness has appeared to prove this. 16. Shri Narayan (PW3) has stated that Sheonaraian put Gokul into the lap of Nathu and Ghasi and stated that now onwards, he was their son. Nathu and Ghasi also proclaimed Gokul to be their son. Shri Narayan (PW3) suggested that Kajodmal prepared the written adoption-deed (Exh. 1), which should be signed by all. Kishan Chander (PW4) has also given similar statement. Rampal (PW5) has however stated that Sheonarayan and his wife put Gokul into the lap of Nathu. Nathu and Ghasi stated that Gokul was now their son. Sheonarayan (PW6) has also stated that Gokul was put into the lap of Nathu and said that till now he was my son but now onwards he will be son of Nathu. Document of adoption-deed was prepared as Exh. 1. Nathu and his brother Ghasi both did not have any issue and both of them requested him to give Gokul in their adoption on the promise that all their properties after their death would be inherited by Gokul. Document of adoption-deed was prepared as Exh. 1. Nathu and his brother Ghasi both did not have any issue and both of them requested him to give Gokul in their adoption on the promise that all their properties after their death would be inherited by Gokul. Ghasi also treated Gokul as his son and in pagadi ceremony, Gokul was accepted as his son by the society. Gokul (PW7)-plaintiff has also given similar statement. 17. Considering evidence of the defendants, it is evident that Bhorya (DW1) stated that Nathu had taken Badri in adoption about fifteen years ago. Father of appellant-Badri has put him into the lap of Nathu and Ghasi, who accepted him as their son. Sanwla (DW6) and Mst. Mooli (DW7) have also given similar statements. Badri (DW8) also gave similar statement that Nathu took him in adoption fifteen years ago in the presence of many persons and they arranged his marriage. Expenses of his marriage were also born by Nathu. When his marriage took place, Nathu performed all the rituals as his father. He stated that Ghasi had also taken him in adoption. When Ghasi died, 'pagadi' was tied over the head of Badri, who performed his last rites as his son. This witness has given a further statement that Kishan Chand Patel was a reputed person of their community and a resident of their village. In their community, if one person takes a child in adoption and if his younger brother is also issueless, the adopted son inherits properties of both the brothers. Defendant No. 2-Smt. Bachchi executed a written document in his favour in Lalsot. Badri (DW8) has denied that Nathu and Ghasi took Gokul in adoption. Hurbux (DW2), Rampal (DW3) and Raghunath (DW4) stated that Nathu and Ghasi did not take Gokul in adoption. Gokul always lived with Sheonarayan and Sheonarayan arranged his marriage. Mangilal (DW5) has also given similar statement. 18. Evidence thus clearly show that most of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff have stated about adoption of Gokul by Nathu. However, some of them have also additionally stated that Ghasi and his wife also proclaimed him to be their son and declared that he would be entitled to inherit their property as well. 19. 18. Evidence thus clearly show that most of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff have stated about adoption of Gokul by Nathu. However, some of them have also additionally stated that Ghasi and his wife also proclaimed him to be their son and declared that he would be entitled to inherit their property as well. 19. No other witness except Nandram (PW2) has given any evidence with regard to customs prevalent in Meena community that if two persons, who are issueless, they can take a single boy in adoption, in which case, he shall be entitled to inherit properties of both of them. Only one instance of similar adoption was given by Nandram (PW2) about one Kishan Chand Patel of Village Jhonpra but that Kishan Chand Patel has not been produced in evidence. Defendant-appellant No. 1-Badri as DW8 has in his statement stated that Kishan Chand Patel was a reputed person of their village, yet he has not been produced in evidence. Another instance given with regard to similar adoption that took place in village Jhonpra is also vague and unspecific. Surprisingly, the plaintiff in his pleadings has come out with a case that adoption took place as per Hindu customs and rites. There is no pleading at all to the effect that in Meena community, any such custom is prevalent. 20. Division Bench of this Court in Mt. Gulab supra held that it is incumbent upon a party relying upon a custom to allege that custom in unambiguous terms in his pleading and prove it, for the presumption which can be made with regard to law, cannot be made with regard to customs. Therefore, a party, who relies upon custom ought to plead it clearly in his plaint so that the opposite party may know his case and may have opportunity to meet it. A joint adoption is invalid under the Hindu law. Thus, one person cannot at the same time be adopted by two persons, unless there is a custom validating such an adoption. 21. The Privy Council in Dhanraj Joharmal supra was also of the view that adoption of a single child by two brothers would be illegal under the Hindu law. A joint adoption is invalid under the Hindu law. Thus, one person cannot at the same time be adopted by two persons, unless there is a custom validating such an adoption. 21. The Privy Council in Dhanraj Joharmal supra was also of the view that adoption of a single child by two brothers would be illegal under the Hindu law. The Full Bench of this Court in Hukam Singh supra held that where plea with regard to custom was specifically not raised in the pleadings, and, the parties were not called upon to lead evidence on the issue, it was unsafe to base the decision of the case, on any findings on the point of custom alleged by some of the witnesses. 22. No doubt, Section 2(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 inter-alia provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. This Court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that Meenas are notified Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India but that by itself does not prove the alleged custom or usage, which in itself is an independent fact, required to be not only pleaded but also proved by cogent evidence. In absence thereof, it is to be presumed that Meenas, who otherwise follow Hindu religion, celebrate all hindu festivals and go by hindu customs and rites, would be governed by the normal law, which includes requisites of valid adoption envisaged in Section 6 of the Act of 1956. Section 10 provides that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless he or she has not already been adopted. In other words, a hindu is capable of taking a person in adoption only if such person has already not been adopted before. Thus, one person can go into adoption to one person only but cannot again go in adoption to second person. Section 11(v) of the said Act clearly provides that same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons. 23. Thus, one person can go into adoption to one person only but cannot again go in adoption to second person. Section 11(v) of the said Act clearly provides that same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons. 23. Moreover, the first appellate court itself has diluted that aspect by partly modifying the judgment & decree passed by the trial court as it held that evidence as well as written adoption-deed (Exh. 1) proves the adoption of plaintiff-Gokul and therefore it has declared plaintiff-Gokul as the adopted son of Nathu and further that one person could not be taken in adoption by two simultaneously. Questions No. A & B are thus answered accordingly. 24. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment & decree of the first appellate court to that extent, does not warrant interference. 25. Coming now to the question whether Ghasi was entitled to make a Will for joint family property, neither there is evidence on record to the effect that property, which Ghasi bequeathed vide first Will dated 24/3/1969, was a joint property owned by him and Nathu nor is there any evidence to the effect that, who held which part of the property individually. Nevertheless, the court can proceed on the footing that Ghasi exclusively owned certain property and that he was capable of executing a Will. Indisputably, the Will dated 24/3/1969 that was executed by Ghasi in favour of plaintiff-Gokul was earlier in point of time than the subsequent Will dated 18/2/1970 executed jointly by Nathu and defendant No. 2-Smt. Bachchi, widow of Ghasi. The Will dated 18/2/1970 has been produced on record by the appellants with an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. Though application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff but considering that it is certified copy of the registered Will dated 18/2/1970 and that courts below have declared this Will to be void even though the same was neither exhibited nor placed on record, it is deemed appropriate to take the same on record so as to enable this Court to effectively decide the dispute between the parties. Since it is a certified copy of the registered Will, this Court can raise a presumption about its genuineness. This Will refers to the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 exhibited by both the brothers Nathu and Ghasi, in favour of plaintiff-Gokul S/o Sheonarayan. Since it is a certified copy of the registered Will, this Court can raise a presumption about its genuineness. This Will refers to the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 exhibited by both the brothers Nathu and Ghasi, in favour of plaintiff-Gokul S/o Sheonarayan. The date on which this Will i.e. 18/2/1970 was executed, admittedly, Ghasi had died. This Will stipulated that Nathu and Bachchi, widow of Ghasi have by the aforesaid Will sought to revoke the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969. 26. Insofar as Nathu is concerned, he having revoked the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 during his lifetime, plaintiff-Gokul would not be entitled to any benefit on the strength of that Will, although independently, if he gets any right in his properties, by virtue of his being adopted son of Nathu, he may take his remedy in that behalf. However in so far as Ghasi is concerned, that Will became absolute and his wife could not have revoked this earlier Will by the subsequent one. However, what would be the effect of Will dated 18/2/1970 when earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 is in existence, executed prior in point of time, is an another issue, which the parties would be free to agitate before the appropriate courts in a duly constituted suit. 27. Defendant No. 2-Bachchi, who has appeared as DW9 in the witness box during trial has admitted execution of the Will by her husband Ghasi in favour of Gokul vide Exh. A.1 dated 24/3/1969. Even that is also a registered Will. The trial court has held that Will dated 18/2/1970 and adoption deed dated 3/3/1970 executed by Nathu and Mst. Bachchi in favour of defendant No. 3-Badri are ineffective as against plaintiff-Gokul and on the strength of the earlier Will dated 24/3/1969 (Exh. A.1), restrained the defendant-appellants from interfering in the possession of the movable and immovable property bequeathed to the plaintiff vide Will (Exh. A.1). First appellate court has however while declaring plaintiff-Gokul as adopted son of only Nathu, further declared him entitled to get his property on the basis of Will of Ghasi and Nathu. With that slight modification, judgment & decree of the trial court was maintained. However, in so far as modification made by the first appellate court that plaintiff-Gokul shall also be entitled to the properties of Ghasi, who died, on the strength of the Will, is concerned, cannot be upheld being legally untenable. With that slight modification, judgment & decree of the trial court was maintained. However, in so far as modification made by the first appellate court that plaintiff-Gokul shall also be entitled to the properties of Ghasi, who died, on the strength of the Will, is concerned, cannot be upheld being legally untenable. This is because his widow could not have revoked the Will executed by Ghasi during his lifetime after he was dead. However, the judgment of the first appellate court to the extent it has held that plaintiff-Gokul would also be entitled to get the properties of Nathu on the strength of the Will, cannot be upheld because earlier Will of Nathu stood revoked by the subsequent Will dated 18/2/1970. This modification would not however affect his rights to receive such properties as his adopted son. 28. Present appeal of the appellants deserves to succeed on that limited extent. 29. The appeal is allowed in part and the judgment & decree dated 31/3/1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, District Jaipur is modified in the aforesaid terms. Modified decree be prepared accordingly. The records be sent back to the courts below. 30. Costs made easy.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******