1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2009 DATTU NARAYAN CHAVAN (DHAVALE) since deceased, through his legal heirs: ) 1-A. Smt.Balkabai Dattu Chavan ) age 70 years. ) 1-B Smt. Indubai Tukaram Shinde, ) Age 50 years, ) 1-C Dilip Dattu Chavan (Dhavale) ) Age 40 years ) 1-D Sou. Suman Dinkar Shinde ) Age 35 years. ) 1-E. Sou. Shantabai Sambhaji Salunkhe ) Age 52 years ) All resdents of Mallewadi, ) Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. )..Appellants (Heirs of the org. Plaintiff) Vs. 1. Rohidas Govind Chambhar (Shinde) ) Occ. Agriculturist, Resident of ) Shipur, Taluka Miraj, Dist.Sangli. ) 2. Vithal Vishwas Jadhav ) Resident of Payappachiwadi, ) Taluka Miraj, Dist. Sangli. ) 3. Madhav Vishwas Jadhav ) 2 Resident of Payappachiwadi, ) Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. )..Respondents Mr.P.D.Dalvi,Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. A.R.S.Baxi,Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th July, 2009. JUJDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff has filed the Second Appeal after dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.255 of 1999 and Regular Civil Appeal No.179 of 2003 filed by him. According to the plaintiff, one Narayan Dhavale had died on 2.4.1939 leaving behind his widow Housabai. Housabai adopted the plaintiff on 27.9.1952 and also executed and registered an adoption deed on the same day. Since then the plaintiff is the adopted son of Housabai and Narayan. The suit property Gat No.348 belonged to Narayan. According to the plaintiff, his name was entered in the Record of Rights by mutation entry 1259 but later on due to some technical ground, his name was deleted. According to him, Housabai had no right or title over the suit property except to get maintenance. The plaintiff had become owner of the same. Housabai died on 29.1.1996. However, prior 3 to her death, in 1991, she had executed a sale deed of he suit property in favour of the defendant No.1. According to him, in fact, no sale deed was executed nor defendant No.1 paid the consideration amount. Possession was also not delivered by Housabai to defendant no.1. Later on, the suit property was purchased by defendant No.4 from the defendant nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiff sought a declaration that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had no right over the suit property and he also sought a decree of possession of the suit property. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was adopted son and that he had become owner of the property. After hearing evidence, the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no.4 preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.179 of 2003. After hearing parties, the appellate court came to conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the adopted as son by Housabai and as a result the appeal was allowed and the suit came to be dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 3. Heard the learned Counsel. Perused the judgments rendered by the Courts below. The record reveals that the plaintiff never entered into witness box to prove that he was the adopted as son by Housabai. He only produced a registered adoption deed in support of his claim. On his behalf, his grandson Suresh and his sister-in-law i.e. wife’s sister viz. Rukmini were examined. The 4 appellate Court noted that Suresh was born in 1975 and therefore he could not have any knowledge of the adoption of his grandfather in 1952. Rukmini was also not a witness of the adoption. No other withness was examined to prove the ceremony of giving and taking which is absolutely essential for the purpose of adoption. It is the settled position of law that mere execution and registration of adoption deed is not sufficient to prove the adoption. It has to be accompanied by the evidence about actual giving and taking which is missing in the present case. 4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff contends that the defendants did not enter into witness box to challenge the adoption and therefore the adoption must be held to be proved. I am unable to accept this contention. The defendants purchased the property under registered sale deeds executed by Housabai who was the owner of the property. The ownership of the property would be disturbed if the plaintiff could prove that he was adopted as son. The plaintiff himself did not enter into witness box, nor examined any other person who was or who could be present at the time of adoption ceremony nor he examined anybody from the Society to establish that after 1952, he was accepted and treated as adopted son of Narayan and Housabai. The learned appellate court while rejecting the claim of the plaintiff, placed reliance upon 5 Madhusudan Das vs. Smt. Narayaniai (1983) I SCC 35 wherein the Supreme Court clearly held that for a valid adoption ceremony of giving and taking is essential requisite whatever the caste of parties. The appellate Court also referred to Para 489 of Hindu Law by Mulla Vol. 1 17th Edn. Wherein the law pertaining to adoption of Hindus has been clearly stated. In view of the reasons given by the appellate Court, I find no fault in the same. In fact, it is a case where there is no evidence worth the name to establish adoption of the plaintiff. No question of law is involved. 5. Therefore the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)