1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.17 OF 2009 Shri Dhondiram Bhauso Shinde .. Appellant. V/s. Smt. Shantabai Narayan Bhujal & Others .. Respondents. Shri Vishwanath S. Talkute, for Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA,J. Dated: 21st JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. This the Second Appeal against concurrent findings of the Courts below, that the Plaintiff / present Appellant has failed to prove that he is adopted son of one Bhauso Ganpat Shinde. According to the Appellant, in 1971, when he was 22 years old, said Bhauso Shinde had taken him in adoption on 30th July, 1971. At that time, Gangubai, wife of Bhauso Shinde was also present. Bhauso G. Shinde died in 1971 and his wife died in 1993. In 1994, the present Appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 282 of 1994 against the daughters of Bhauso Shinde and other connected persons for partition and separate possession of the Srj 2 property of Bhauso Shinde. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff was adopted. 2. On perusal of the Judgment of the Courts below, it appears that the appellant was 22 years old at the time of alleged adoption. His natural parents had expired long back. In the Plaint, he had nowhere declared as to who had given him in adoption. For the first time, during trial, evidence was given that his elder brother had given him in adoption. Admittedly,his elder brother was not appointed as guardian for him, nor he was granted any permission to give Appellant in adoption. Alleged adoption had taken place on 30th July, 1971 and Adoption Deed was allegedly executed by said Bhauso G. Shinde on 3rd August, 1971, in favour of the Appellant. The original Adoption Deed which was executed , to be in possession of the Appellant, was never produced before the Court and he sought permission of Trial Court to produce the secondary evidence, and, he produced certified photocopy of the Adoption Deed. The Courts below did not believe the document, because on the basis of the photocopy, it was impossible for any witness to say whether the particular signature was of deceased Bhauso G. Shinde. Besides that, in the Adoption Deed, it was not mentioned as to who had given adoption. It appears that during the First Appeal,the Appellant tried to develop the plea that he himself has gone in adoption. It is settled position of law for adoption of child, there has to be ceremony of Srj 3 giving and taking the child in adoption. In the present case, there is no evidence that the Appellant was in fact, given adoption. 3. There is no dispute that in the Bombay School of Hindu Law, even a person who has attained majority, can be given in adoption. The learned counsel for the Appellant contents that it is not necessary that a child who has attended majority and is orphan, should be given in adoption by somebody else. I am not convinced with this contention particularly, when in view of the pleadings and the evidence was given above in the First Appeal. 5. Taking into consideration the circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the concurrent findings of the facts. I also do not find any substantial law involved in the appeal. In view of the above, said Second Appeal is dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) Srj