1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 127 OF 2006 Shankar S/o Uttam Giri .. APPELLANTS (Ori. Palintiff) VERSUS Rambuva S/o Datta Giri & others .. RESPONDENTS (Ori. Defendants) ... Shri V.V. Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15h SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : The present Appellant is the original plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the 3 Hector 96 Are land out of Gut NO. 192. 2. The suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed by both the Courts. It was held that plaintiff is owner and possessor of 2 H. 64 Are 2 land. 3. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in fact, adoption of the defendant has not been proved, and said adoption was not legal and proper, as the said adoption is not proved. The plaintiff is entitled for land Admeasuring 3 Hector 96 Are. According to the learned Counsel, the Court has not considered the evidence in its correct perspective. It has been proved that the said adoption deed is a fabricated document. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel of the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgments of both the Courts below. Both the Courts have extensively discussed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the adoption in question has been proved. In the light of the fact fact that the adoption has been proved the share of the plaintiff naturally is 1/3rd and he would be entitled for an area of 2 Hector 64 Are land. No error is committed by the Courts below, no substantial question of law is 3 involved in the Second Appeal. As such, present Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM*127.06SA