IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2005. APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2005. APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2005. Shashikant Govind Kadam & others. ... Appellants. Versus. Vishnu Maruti Kadam & others. ... Respondents. Shri Udaty Warunjikar for the Appellants. Shri R.S.Dhaygude for the Respondents Nos.1, 2, 5A, 5B, CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th July, 2006. : 28th July, 2006. : 28th July, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Warunjikar appearing for the Appellants. He submitted that the Appellate Court has declined to consider the challenge by the Appellants to the factum of adoption dated 4th August 1935. He pointed out that the Appellate Court has not considered the said plea on the ground that the original Defendant No.1 in his written statement has not specifically denied the adoption. After examination-in-chief of the Plaintiff Vishnu was completed, occasion arose for filing additional written statement by the heirs as the first Defendant expired. He pointed out that there was no oral evidence on record to prove the validity of adoption. He submitted that there are other circumstances which indicate that the adoption was not at all valid and in fact it was not proved. 2. I have considered the submissions. The Appellate Court has noted that the 1st Defendant was alive when the examination-in-chief of the Plaintiff was : 2 : 2 : 2 : recorded. The examination-in-chief was recorded on 21st September 1994. The written statement by legal heirs of the 1st Defendant was filed in the year 1999. The observation of the Appellate Court is that after closure of the evidence of the Plaintiff, the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant made an attempt to challenge the execution of the deed of adoption by filing their written statement. It is pointed out by the 1st Appellate Court that till the completion of recording of evidence of the original Plaintiff, there was no specific challenge to the factum of adoption. In the context of these observations, the 1st Appellate Court has considered the recitals in the deed of adoption which was duly registered and came to the conclusion that the adoption is proved. I find no error in the approach of the Appellate Court. Once it is established that the adoption which was effected by a registered deed of adoption was valid, the other circumstances cease to have significance. No substantial question of law arises. There is no reason to interfere with the decree of partition passed by the Courts below. The Second Appeal is dismissed. Judge. Judge. Judge.