Custom permitting adoption of a married man must be strictly proved, and adoption itself requires clear, credible evidence.

Under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, adoption of a married person is impermissible unless a valid custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it, and that custom must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by the party relying on it. A judicial reference to similar customs does not relieve that burden, and the alleged custom here was not established. Adoption, which alters succession rights, must also be proved by cogent, consistent and credible evidence; the appellant's evidence contained material contradictions, lacked satisfactory documentary support, and did not dispel suspicious circumstances. The appellant therefore failed to prove both the custom and the adoption, and the finding that he was not the adopted son remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person asserting a custom permitting adoption of a married man must prove that custom, notwithstanding judicial recognition of some customs; (ii) Whether the appellant proved the factum of adoption.

Issue (i): Whether a person asserting a custom permitting adoption of a married man must prove that custom, notwithstanding judicial recognition of some customs.

Analysis: Under Section 3(a) and Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, adoption of a married person is impermissible unless a custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it. A custom, to have the force of law, must be certain, reasonable, continuous, and of long usage, and the burden lies on the party relying upon it to plead and strictly prove it. A judicial reference to a custom does not dispense with proof of its existence and applicability in the case at hand.

Conclusion: The alleged custom was not proved, and the issue was answered against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant proved the factum of adoption.

Analysis: Adoption changes the course of succession and therefore must be established by cogent, consistent, and credible evidence, especially where suspicious circumstances exist. The evidence led on behalf of the appellant contained material contradictions, the pleaded custom was not established, and there was no satisfactory documentary support to dispel suspicion. The appellant also failed to properly plead and prove the adoption in the manner required by law.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove the adoption, and the issue was answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the finding that the appellant was not the adopted son failed, and the judgment under appeal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A custom permitting adoption of a married person must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and an alleged adoption must be established by clear and credible evidence free from suspicious circumstances.

---