Short Note : 1. Plaintiff-respondent Parbat Singh and appellant No. 2 defendant Lad-singh are real brothers. Daryaosingh another brother died issueless in the year 1961 leaving behind the agricultural lands specified in the schedule annexed to the plaint. Appellant No. 1 defendant Rajmal is the son of Ladsingh. Plaintiff Parbat Singh filed a suit for declaration that being an heir to deceased Daryaosingh, he was entitled to the extent of half share in the lands mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint and is also entitled to be recorded as such. He also claimed a relief for partition and separate possession over his share. The defendants in their joint written-statement resisted the plaintiff's suit. The defence was that defendant No. 1 i.e., Rajmal was the adopted son of deceased Daryaosingh and for that reason he was his sole heir. A will said to have been executed by Daryaosingh in favour of Rajmal giving all his movable and immovable property to Rajmal was also set up. 2. The trial Judge did not find adoption of Rajmal by Daryaosingh to be proved. The two documents viz., Ex. D-1 executed in the 1953 and the other Ex. D-2 executed in 1961 though styled as Wasiyatnama were in fact not found to be wills. He, after a decision on the issues framed by him, decreed the plaintiff's suit. The appeal against that judgment and decree was also dismissed by the first appellate Court. Held : Admittedly, Rajmal was the only son of Ladsingh. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in A. Rabhayamma v. Chanchamma, ( AIR 1964 SC 136 ) have laid down that "It is well-settled that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum on adoption and its validity." Both the Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding that the adoption was not proved. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any error in that finding. The finding in that behalf is based on the evidence on record. It has further been observed in this case that "it is well known that ordinarily an only son is neither given nor taken in adoption." The adoption is said to have taken place at the time of Rajmal's marriage. The finding in that behalf is based on the evidence on record. It has further been observed in this case that "it is well known that ordinarily an only son is neither given nor taken in adoption." The adoption is said to have taken place at the time of Rajmal's marriage. Reliance was also sought to be placed in this behalf on the documents Ex. D-1 and D-2 wherein there is a reference of Rajmal having been adopted by Daryaosingh. Suffice it to say that in absence of the proof of adoption, the averment in these two documents is of no avail to prove the same. Learned Counsel for the appellants referred to a decision of this Court in Ganpati v. Damodar (1960 J.L.J., 122) but this decision, in my opinion, is of no help to the appellants. 3. The other question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the two documents Ex. D-1 and D-2 executed by Daryaosingh in his life time should have been construed as wills. In support of his contention he referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Gnambal Ammal v. Raju Ayyar ( AIR 1951 SC 103 ). According to him, the intention of deceased Daryaosingh should have been seen. In each of the two documents there is language to the effect that Daryaosingh has already given possession of his movable and immovable properties to Rajmal. In view of this language, neither of them can be construed as a will. Ex. D-1 executed on 15-5-1953 is on an unstamped plain paper, while the other one is on a stamp of 0.50 paise only, neither of the two is registered. In these circumstance Rajmal cannot be said to have acquired any right, title or interest in the property of Daryaosingh on the basis of Ex. D-1 and D-2 Appeal dismissed.