" The aforesaid Ranjit Singh is my adopted son and during my lifetime he has and after my death he will have rights like natural sons." In the deed there is no reference to the property of Kartar Singh. Death of Kartar Singh occurred on June 16, 1958. He left behind immovable property, of which description sufficiently appears in the plaint by Hamam Singh, who was a third-degree collateral of Kartar Singh in which he sought his share of the inheritance of Kartar Singh on the ground that the immovable property left by the latter was ancestral qua him and that, in any case, no adoption in fact ever took place, further pleading that the adoption deed was no more than a mere paper transaction. Harnam Singh died during the pendency of the suit and has been represented by his two sons, Garja Singh and Bhajan Singh, respondents in this second appeal. The broad defences of Ranjit Singh, appellant, were that the land was not ancestral qua Harnam Singh plaintiff and Kartar Singh deceased, that he was duly adopted according to custom, with proper ceremonies, followed by the deed of adoption, Exhibit D-2, and that, in any case, the deed of adoption operated as a will. So that the property being non-ancestral, the plaintiff had no claim against him.
2. The trial Judge found that the property is non-ancestral so far as Harnam Singh plaintiff is concerned, and this is a matter which was not in controversy in appeal before the District Judge. The trial Court further found that the adoption of Ranjit Singh appellant by Kartar Singh at the age of 6 or 7 years was not proved, the evidence in that respect having been found unreliable, and that the adoption deed, Exhibit D-2, was nothing more than a mere paper transaction, reciting an adoption which had in fact never taken place. This finding has been affirmed by the District Judge on appeal, after review of the whole evidence on this matter. Both the Courts have also come to the conclusion that there was no evidence that Kartar Singh ever treated Ranjit Singh appellant as a son and in fact there was evidence to the contrary that he did not do so and could not have done so. The two Courts have concurred in this that the adoption deed, Exhibit D-2, on its language and terms cannot be read operating either as a gift deed of his property by Kartar Singh to Ranjit Singh appellant or a testamentary disposition of the same after his death by Kartar Singh.