1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2008 Smt.Anusaya Laxman Musale .......Appellant versus Haibatrao Laxman Musale & Ors. ........ Respondents. Mr.P.D.Dalvi, Adv. for the Appellant. Mr.Amit Borkar, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Dalvi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Borkar for respondent no.1. The appellant is the original defendant no.1. The respondent no.1/plaintiff's suit for injunction restraining the appellant/original defendant no.1 from alienating or creating charge on his share in the suit property came to be decreed. This decree is confirmed by the lower appellate court. Hence present Second Appeal. 2. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he was adopted by the husband of the appellant/defendant no. 1 on 7-9-1979. The adoptive father, the husband of the appellant/original defendant no.1 died on 5-4-1999. The respondent no.1/original plaintiff claimed right in the suit property 2 on the basis of this adoption. The appellant/defendant no.1 denied the factum of adoption. It was her case that she had not given consent for adoption to her husband, and the adoption of respondent no.1/plaintiff is illegal as he was major at the time of adoption. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court recorded finding that respondent no.1/plaintiff proved that deceased husband of appellant/defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 adopted the respondent no.1/plaintiff as their son on 7-5- 1979 by valid adoption deed. This finding is recorded on the basis of evidence of P.w.no.2 Pandurang Patil at Exh.84 and P.w.3 Pandurang Deware at Exh.70. The appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore I do not find any merit so far as appellant's submission about illegality of adoption. 3. So far as the submission that the respondent no.1/plaintiff was a major at the time of adoption is concerned, the lower courts below relied on decision of the Supreme Court in 1976 Mh.L.J. 125 to conclude that a person may be adopted at any age in Maharashtra State and there is customs to that effect. In view of Apex Court judgment this submission also is without any substance. 4. Mr. Dalvi's submission that adoption in question was without consent of the appellant/defendant no.1, has no merit in the light of observation of lower appellate court that the appellant/defendant no.1 simply showed her ignorance about the 3 adoption and execution of deed, but has never denied it. In any case, the respondent no.1/plaintiff has proved the factum of adoption by examining his genetic father Dnyandev Methe and two attesting witnesses to the deed. The adoption took place in 1979. The suit was filed in the year 1992. The issue of illegality was never raised by the appellant/original defendant no.1 prior to filing of the suit. Both the courts below in my considered opinion, have approached the matter in correct perspective. No ground to interfere in the aforesaid second appeal is pointed out. Second appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.V. More, J.)