sa193.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2011 ,With CA/5420/2011 ,In SA/193/2011 ASHOK PANDHARINATH BORUDE AND ANR. ... APPELLANTS. VERSUS MURLIDHAR GOPINATH BORUDE L.RS. SISHWANATH GOPINATH BORUDE AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Advocate for appellants : Mr. D N Patki. Advocate for Respondents : Mr.R B Deshpande. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. He invited my attention to page 46 i.e. copy of registered adoption deed and submitted that the said adoption was after following proper procedure. However, the Courts below have not properly appreciated the contention of the appellant and rejected the suit as also the appeal sa193.11 2 filed by the appellant. He invited my attention to the deposition of plaintiff and submitted that oral evidence was also produced on record and, therefore, the case of the appellant should have been accepted. Therefore, according him, the second appeal deserves to be considered. 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that none of the conditions / formalities or the relevant provisions were followed at the time of the alleged adoption ceremony in 1989. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the consent of father and mother was not obtained, giving and taking ceremony was not performed or it has not been not brought on record, the priest was not examined and also the Defendant No.2 who is real father of the appellant, was also not examined. The evidence of son-in-law has also been shaken in cross-examination, he has not stated that there was consent of father and mother. DW-1 Ashok in his examination-in-chief, no where stated that he was given in adoption by his father and mother. It is sa193.11 3 further submitted that in the voters' list and all other record including leaving certificate etc., there is no change in the name of adopted father. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the lower appellate Court has dealt with the submissions of the parties and then has taken a view after appreciating the documents on record that Ashok is not adopted son of Murlidhar. 3. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. Except the evidence of D.W.-1 Ashok and registered adoption deed, which was in the year, 1996 i.e. after seven years from the alleged ceremony of adoption, there is no any other credible evidence placed on record. Even, evidence of D.W.-1 Ashok no where states that he was given in adoption by his father and mother. The evidence of D.W.-1 Ashok has been discussed by the appellate Court in para 11 of the impugned judgment. It is not necessary to burden this order by reproducing the documents referred to by the Courts below. Suffice it to say that there was no sa193.11 4 convincing evidence so as to accept the case of the appellant about the alleged adoption. The public record shows that there is no change in name as such. Therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below after appreciating the evidence brought on record are not perverse, in any manner. The appellant herein has utterly failed to prove the adoption deed. The glaring factor is that even in his deposition before the Court, the appellant has not stated that there was consent by his father and mother for the adoption, which is an important condition in the process of adoption. 4. For all these reasons, I do not find that this second appeal raises any substantial question of law for consideration. Therefore, second appeal stands dismissed summarily. Civil Application stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. PLK/*