1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.731 OF 2008 Maruti Ganpati Shinde ...Appellant. v. Vitthal Shamu Shinde & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Prashant Bhavake i/by N.V.Bandiwadekar, advs. For the Appellants. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 1st September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 This is the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff. According to the plaintiff in the year 1967 when he was aged about 5 or 6 years, he was adopted by Hausabai widow of Ganpati. According to him, one Babaji Shinde had four sons namely, Shidu, Nagu, Ganpati and Rama. He is son of Jaysingh, who was grandson of Babaji. According to him, joint family was holding certain property and in view of his adoption by Hausabai widow of Ganpati, he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the said property. That claim was resisted by the defendants, who are his own siblings except Gangubai who is daughter of Nagu. Both the Courts below rejected the claim of the plaintiff that he was adopted son of Hausabai widow of Ganpati and that he was entitled to 1/3rd share in the property and that property is joint family property. 2 3 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the original adoption deed was produced and in view of Section 16 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 there shall be presumption in favour of the adoption when the registered document related to adoption is produced unless and until it is disproved. Basic requisites for adoption are given in Section 6. It is well settled principle of law that for valid adoption, there has to be giving and taking of child in adoption. In the present case, plaintiff examined himself , one Mohan Pawar and Vilas Jagdale. Vilas Jagdale was the son of the person, who had scribed Adoption Deed. He could prove only handwriting of his father and nothing more. Evidence of Mohan Pawar also does not show that ceremony of adoption had taken place. Plaintiff , who was child of 5 to 6 years at the time of adoption, deposed about ceremony of giving and taking in the adoption and execution of the adoption deed . The plaintiff did not lead any evidence worth name to prove that adoption had taken place . He also did not examine any witness to prove execution of adoption deed. Mere production of adoption deed would not be sufficient . It has to be proved that adoption deed was infact executed by the person giving in adoption and the person taking in adoption. The adoption had 3 taken place in the year 1967. Suit was filed in the year 1986. Judgment was delivered by the trial Court in the year 2004. It is impossible to believe that none of the witnesses of the adoption ceremony or of the adoption deed was alive or available at the time of recording evidence. Taking into consideration all these facts, it appears that except production of registered document purporting to be adoption deed, no evidence was produced. Even the execution of the adoption deed is not proved by examining any witness. Therefore, Courts below did not presume in favour of the plaintiff in spite of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. I find no fault in the same. No question of law is involved in the present appeal in view of the concurrent finding of the fact. 3 Therefore, appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)