Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal against the appellate decree of Mr. Maharaj Kishore, District Judge, Hissar, confirming the decree of the trial Court.
(2.) A reference to the under mentioned pedigree table will show the relationship of the parties: GORDHAN | | | Bhola Raja Ram | Married to Mt. Nanho | Who adopted Hazari.| | | Hazari Chet Ram Rati Ram Plaintiffs are the descendants of Rati Ram and Chet Ram and Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the descendants of Hazari. The Plaintiffs' suit that Hazari was adopted by Raja Ram's widow Mt. Nanho, and therefore the estate which had vested in him before the adoption must be taken to have been divested. Both the Courts below, have found that according to custom the estate which has vested in a son after the death of his father does not get divested on his adopter into another family and it is this question which has to be decided in the present appeal.
(3.) THE adoption of Hazari took place as long ago as the year 1895. At that time his real father Bhola was dead and he had already inherited one third share of the estate of his father. The general rule is given in a judgment of the Lahore High Court 'Changa v. Jai Lal, AIR 1924 Lah 480 where it was held that according to Hindu Law or custom an adopted son was not deprived of the estate which he had inherited before his adoption unless a contrary custom was proved. In the present case the Plaintiffs have tried to set up a special custom and in support they have produced four witnesses. (After considering evidence his Lordship proceeded:). On this evidence it is very difficult to hold that the special custom has been proved that an estate which has vested in a person who is subsequently adopted is divested as a result of his adoption.;