Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of land described in Schedule I annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff's case was that Kashibai, the widow of Nathusingh who was the adopted son of one Ramsingh, had mortgaged the suit land with Jagannath, father of defendant No. 1 and Rughnathsingh-husband of defendant No.2; that the mortgage was redeemed on 4th February 1945; and that thereafter Kashibai was in possession of the suit land. It was further averred that sometime in the year 1950, Jagannath, father of defendant No. 1 and father-in-law of defendant No.2 unlawfully occupied the suit land. The plaintiff contended that after Kashibai's death on 15th April 1952, he, along with defendants Nos. 3 to 7, became entitled as reversioners to the possession of the suit land from defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were in possession of the suit land after the death of Jagannath. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 inter alia on the ground that Nathusingh was not the adopted son of Ramsingh and that Kashibai had no title to right or interest in the suit land, which belonged to Jagannath. father of defendant No. 1. It was also contended that the defendants had been in adverse possession of the suit land and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that Nathusingh was the adopted son of Ramsingh and that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 7 were entitled to the possession of the suit land as reversioners. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial Court, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 preferred separate appeals the lower appellate Court, by its impunged judgment, allowed the appeals and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this second appeal. 2. Held: Shri Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that Nathusingh was not proved to be the adopted son of Ramsingh. Now, the lower appellate Court had held, after appreciating the oral evidence on record that the story regarding adoption, put forward by the plaintiff and his witnessess, could not be relied upon. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the evidence on record. Now, the lower appellate Court had held, after appreciating the oral evidence on record that the story regarding adoption, put forward by the plaintiff and his witnessess, could not be relied upon. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the evidence on record. It was further held that Nathusigh was married, as admitted by the plaintiff himself, when the alleged adoption took place, and that the adoption of a married boy was not valid as no custom to that effect was pleaded or proved. It was further held that it was alleged by the plaintiff's witnesses that Nathusingh was adopted by the widow of Ramsingh and that it was not shown on behalf of the plaintiff that Ranibai, the widow, had authority to adopt. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out that these findings are vitiated by any error of law. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the finding that Nathusingh was not proved to be the adopted son of Ramsingh. Appeal dismissed.