Short Note : This appeal by the defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-12-1967 passed by the first Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil First Appeal No. 100-A of 1966 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31-3-64 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Dhar, in Civil Suit No.2 of 1963. Held : The lower Court has found that the witnesses examined by the appellant have failed to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking. The witnesses examined to prove the factum of adoption were Mangilal (DW3), Shankar (DW5) & Narsing (DW6) Shri Mahajan, who has read the evidence of these witnesses before me was unable to point out that their statements have been misread by the lower appellate Court. These witnesses have not deposed that giving and taking ceremony was performed at the time of the alleged adoption. Then Shri Mahajan submitted that the evidence has been mis-appreciated by the lower Court. But this cannot be a ground for interference in second appeal. Howsoever grossly erroneous the finding of fact may be it is binding on this Court in second appeal. 2. It was then submitted by Shri Mahajan that this being an old adoption the same should be held as proved although evidence of giving and taking was not forthcoming. He placed reliance upon the decision in L. Debiprasad etc. v. Smt. Tribeni Devi and others, AIR 1970 SC 1286 . The facts of this case were quite different. In the present case the adoption is alleged to have taken place in the year 1950-51 and evidence was available and has been given to prove the adoption. Further there is no satisfactory evidence that Tilokchand was treated as the adopted son of Babulal. This adoption has not been found proved on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case. Thus, there is no merit in this submission of the appellant. 3. Mayne in his treatise of Hindu Law and Usage (eleventh edition) in para 175 has discussed the law as follows:- “There is another rule that no one can be adopted whose mother in her maiden state the adopter could not have legally married.” 4. Thus, there is no merit in this submission of the appellant. 3. Mayne in his treatise of Hindu Law and Usage (eleventh edition) in para 175 has discussed the law as follows:- “There is another rule that no one can be adopted whose mother in her maiden state the adopter could not have legally married.” 4. The rule that there can be no legal adoption unless a legal marriage is possible between the person for whom the adoption is made and the mother of the boy who is adopted in her maidan state, is stated to have been accepted by almost all the High Courts except the Bombay High Court. In AIR 1962 SC 351 (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have assumed the correctness of this rule in the above case but held the adoption valid on the ground that a marriage with wife's sister's daughter wall not invalid. Now it cannot be questioned that a marriage between Babulal and his mother-whose son Tilokchand is said to have been adopted for him is impossible. Such a marriage is unthinkable. In my opinion a brother would fall within the purview of the said rule and adoption of a brother in the absence of a custom to the contrary is invalid. AIR 1925 Bom. 399 dissented from, AIR 1970 SC 1286 distinguished, AIR 1962 SC 351 and AIR 1962 SC 356 referred to. Hindu Law and Usage (11th Edi.) by Mayne relied on. Appeal dismissed.