1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2006 1. KESHAV NEUJI NAIK . MIRZAPUR, CHANDUR BAZAR, AMRAVATI .. Petitioner/s VERSUS 1. VINOD SAMPATRAO GAJBHIYE AND ANOR. . NAZARPUR, AMRAVATI .. Respondent/s Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri P. S. Patil Adv for appellant. Shri J. B. Kasat Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 5 th AUGUST, 2009. This Second Appeal is preferred by the original defendant 2 No.1. Respondent no.1 instituted a suit for injunction restraining the present appellant from interfering with his possession over the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff respondent No.1 that he was adopted by one Sampat Gajbhiye and after the death of Sampat he had become the owner of the suit property by virtue of succession. He contended that defendant No. 1 i. e. the present appellant started interfering with the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff came to know that defendant No.2 who is the natural father of plaintiff Vinod had sold the suit property to one Drupada and Drupada had executed a will in favour of Keshav. Present appellant Keshav contended that he had become the owner of the suit property since Drupada had executed a will in his favour. It was also his say that Drupada had purchased the property from defendant No.2 Anand and further it was contended by the present appellant Keshav that he has been in possession of the property since then. The plaintiff later amended the plaint and sought possession of the suit property on the ground that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Judge of the trial Court had dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiff respondent No.1 was not in possession 3 of the suit property and was not the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 therefore preferred an appeal before the District Judge and District Judge allowed the appeal and held that Vinod respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit property he having been adopted by Sampat. He, therefore, passed a decree for possession in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the Courts below have erred in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is the contention that appellant has been continuously in possession of the suit property and title of Vinod has not been proved. The plaintiff claims to be owner upon devolution of property on him through his adoptive father. As far as adoption is concerned plaintiff respondent No.1 has placed on record registered adoption-deed. Section 16 if the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act says that the if the adoption deed is registered it shall have a presumptive value. The said adoption deed is produced on record. In the circumstances the burden lies upon the defendant appellant to show that adoption was not valid. Further more it may be observed that after going through the Written Statement it is clear that defendant No.1 never challenged the adoption of plaintiff Vinod at all. In the circumstances such a point cannot be raised in the 4 Second Appeal. As far as decree for possession is concerned it is the case of the plaintiff that he was dispossessed during course of appeal and therefore he sought an amendment to the plaint and sought possession. He is entitled to possession since he is held to be owner. Appellate Court has rightly held him entitled to the possession. No substantial question of law is raised before me. I therefore do not find any substance in the Second Appeal. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 5 6 7