JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Pulwama, in an application filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act, Svt. 1977 (1920 AD), whereby the learned trial court has held the Respondents 1 to 3 and the proforma respondent herein, i.e., the widow of the deceased, entitled to the securities left behind by the deceased. One Muhammad Akram Ganaie is said to have died issueless leaving behind an amount of Rs. 49151.41 in Account No. 2855 with J&K Bank Ltd., B/O Pakharpora, Chari Sharief. Respondents 1 to 3, claiming to be nephews of the deceased and Respondent No. 4 claiming to be widow of the brother of the deceased, filed an application before the trial court seeking issuance of succession certificate in their favour in respect of the aforesaid securities. Widow of the deceased was impleaded as non-applicant No. 1 and the appellant herein was arraigned as non-applicant No. 2 in the application. The appellant, non-applicant No. 2, contested the claim of the applicants on the ground that he had been adopted by the deceased Muhammad Akram Ganaie. However, the learned trial court disallowed the contention raised by the appellant and ordered as under: "In the afore quoted backdrop, it is held that applicant No. 1 to 3 and non-applicant No. 1 under Muslim Personal Law are prima facie entitled to the debts left behind by the deceased in the amount of Rs. 49151.41/- lying in J&K Bank B/O Pakharpora, Chari Sharief, under A/C No. 2855 for the purpose of issuance of succession certificate. Accordingly, applicants No. 1 to 3 and non-applicant No. 1 are directed to deposit requisite court fee @ 3% to form part of the file for being consigned to records. Office is directed to prepare requisite certificate in favour of applicants No. 1 to 3 and non-applicant No. 1, as per their respective shares, strictly in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. Prior to the issuance of succession certificate applicants No. 1 to 3 and non-applicant No. 1 shall furnish surety bond to the effect that they shall indemnify any person who may be found entitled to the whole or any part of these debts and securities." Hence, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. Prior to the issuance of succession certificate applicants No. 1 to 3 and non-applicant No. 1 shall furnish surety bond to the effect that they shall indemnify any person who may be found entitled to the whole or any part of these debts and securities." Hence, the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased had executed a Will in favour of the appellant and that the appellant opposed the application filed by the respondents for grant of succession certificate on the strength of the said will deed. But the learned trial court in its impugned order has completely ignored this aspect of the matter. He submitted that the impugned order is totally against Muslim Personal Law applicable to the parties as, according to him, Will would take precedence over the sharers and the succession of the heirs can only open after all the debts of the deceased are paid and his bequest are disbursed. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant had the first charge over the securities left behind by the deceased as he had incurred expenses on the deceased's treatment during his ailment. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the best course for the learned District Judge was to refer the parties to civil court for establishment of their respective rights. 4. I feel that the main contentions, as regards his adoption by the deceased and his claim of having become a heir of the deceased, raised by the learned counsel are not res Integra. The learned District Judge has passed a well reasoned order in accordance with the law holding the field. In view of the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007 read with the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ahad Sheikh v. Murad Ahmad Shah, 2012 (4) JKJ 860 (HC), in matters of inheritance, it is only the personal law that would apply. Under the Muslim Personal Law an adopted son does not become an heir nor can he inherit. It is to be borne in mind that adopted son does not mean adopted heir or heir by acknowledgement. Hanafi Law of Succession recognises only heir by acknowledgement as a class of heirs. Under the Muslim Personal Law an adopted son does not become an heir nor can he inherit. It is to be borne in mind that adopted son does not mean adopted heir or heir by acknowledgement. Hanafi Law of Succession recognises only heir by acknowledgement as a class of heirs. What is meant by 'heir by acknowledgement' has been stated in Ameer Ali's "Commentaries on Mohammedan Law", 5th Edition 2004, at page 1021 in the following words: "Fifth Class. Heir by acknowledgement. Adopted heir or heir by acknowledgment, 'a person in whose favour the deceased had made a declaration of nasab, or descent, as against another, but not such as to establish his descent and has persisted in such declaration to his death. In this three conditions are implied: the declaration of descent must be as against another, as, for instance, when the deceased has declared a person of unknown descent to be his brother, which involves a declaration against his father that the person is his son; the declaration must be such as not to establish the descent of the person acknowledged, as when it is not acquiesced in by the father; and the acknowledger must die without restricting his acknowledgement' (Hedaya). In other words, an heir acknowledgment is one in respect of whom the deceased (both the acknowledger and the acknowledged being persons of unknown descent) has admitted a tie of blood. For example, if two persons of unknown parentage call themselves brothers and one of them dies without leaving any known heirs, the other person would be entitled to the deceased's inheritance." (Underlining supplied) 5. The appellant is stated to be the son of non-applicant No. 1, i.e., the widow of the deceased, from her first husband. He, by no stretch of imagination can fall in the aforesaid category of "adopted heir or heir by acknowledgment". Consequently he would not be entitled to succeed to the properties left behind by the deceased. 6. As regards his claim that he had incurred expenditure on medical treatment of the deceased as being his adopted son, the objections filed by him before the learned trial court reveal that he had contested the claim of the respondents to the succession certificate. His case before the trial court was not that respondents were obliged to liquidate the amounts spent by the appellant on such treatment. His case before the trial court was not that respondents were obliged to liquidate the amounts spent by the appellant on such treatment. He also did he specify any such amount in his objections. He has just made a mere passing statement that he had incurred expenditure on the treatment of the deceased. In any case, he is left free to recover such amount in appropriate proceedings from the respondents. 7. In light of what has been said above, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. This appeal is, accordingly, held to be without any merit and, therefore, unnecessary, and is dismissed as such. Trial Court record be returned to the court concerned immediately.