JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration that the defendant-appellant Ambrish Kumar is not the adopted son of Bhagawati Prasad defendant No. 3 who died on 21st March, 1974 during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. On the death of Bhagawati Prasad, a relief by way of amend -lent of the plaint was added for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the property specified in the schedule to the plaint and in case it was found that they were not in possession for a decree of possession thereof as his heirs. 2. The defendant-appellant is the natural son of defendant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. The deceased defendant Bhagawati Prasad executed a registered deed of adoption on 13th September 1966 declaring that the defendant-appellant had been given in adoption by defendant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and taken by Bhagawati Prasad deceased defendant No. 3 on 11th September 1966 in accordance with the customary Hindu rites. The plaintiff Hatti Prasad, respondent No. 1 and Kamta Prasad respondent No. 2 claimed that they along with their brother Badri Prasad, defendant respondent No. 5 were the heirs and legal representatives of Bhagawati Prasad according to the genealogical table given in the plaint. Bhagawati Prasad had a brother Banwari lal who worked as petition writer and a Lawyers clerk at Gorakhpur and had died on 4th February, 1968 without leaving any issues. Deceased Bhagawati Prasad was alleged to be deaf and dumb since birth and of unsound mind. It was alleged that he did not have the necessary capacity of making an adoption because of the same. It was also alleged that no ceremony of giving or taking in adoption had taken place and the deed of adoption was got executed by Bhagawati Prasad who was a person of unsound mind, because Bhagawati Prasad's brother Banwari Lal was under the influence of Raghunath Singh defendant-respondent No. 3. 3. Bhagawati Prasad, Deceased defendant No. 3 admitted the genealogical table given in the plaint but denied the other allegations made therein. He alleged that he was not deaf or dumb since birth but had come to acquire that disability later on and further that he did adopt the defendant-appellant after performing all the necessary ceremonies and that defendants Nos. 3. Bhagawati Prasad, Deceased defendant No. 3 admitted the genealogical table given in the plaint but denied the other allegations made therein. He alleged that he was not deaf or dumb since birth but had come to acquire that disability later on and further that he did adopt the defendant-appellant after performing all the necessary ceremonies and that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had voluntarily given the defendant-appellant in adoption to him and he had on his part voluntarily taken him in adoption, that no fraud was practised on him when be executed and got the deed of adoption registered. Defendant-respondents No. 3 and 4 and the defendant-appellant also denied the plaint allegations and alleged that the deceased defendant No. 3 Bhagawati Prasad was riot a person of unsound mind and that he had adopted the defendant-appellant on 11th September, 1966 in accordance with the Hindu rites and had duly executed and got registered the deed of adoption dated 13th September, 1966. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has on the other hand decreed the suit on the findings that deceased defendant No. 3 was of unsound mind although be was not insane; that the defendant-appellant was not adopted son of the deceased defendant No. 3 Bhagawati Prasad, that the adoption deed dated 13th September, 1966 was obtained. by fraud ; and that the plaintiffs had a right to cue and the suit was not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 5. The principal question which arises for determination in this case is whether the deceased defendant No. 3 had the necessary mental capacity to take the defendant-appellant in adoption on 11th September, 1966. 6. According to Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. The proviso and the Explanation thereto are not material for the purposes of the present case, as deceased defendant No. 3 Bhagawati Prasad had no wife. According to the comments on Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in the Fourteenth Edition of mullas Hindu Law (at page 997) about the capacity of a Male Hindu to take in adoption an adoption by a person of unsound mind is no adoption at all. According to the comments on Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in the Fourteenth Edition of mullas Hindu Law (at page 997) about the capacity of a Male Hindu to take in adoption an adoption by a person of unsound mind is no adoption at all. A person who wants to challenge any adoption on the ground that the adoptive father was of unsound mind will have to discharge the heavy onus of proving that at the date of the adoption the adoptive father was of unsound mind. This requirement relating to mental capacity is a very simple one which does not demand any high degree of intelligence on the part of the adoptive father to comprehend that he is adopting a son and there is always a very strong presumption in favour of sanity. This burden of proof may however, shift where it is shown, for instance that the adoptive father had on inquisition been found to have been lunatic Smt. Gopi v. Madan Lal, A I.R. 1970 Raj 190. Apart from the evidence on the record. the trial court had on 7th February, 1970 examined the deceased Defendant Bhagawati Prasad who had appeared personally in the court on the date. The trial court observed "Shri Bhagwati Prasad, defendant No. 3 appears himself personally. He was interrogated before the parties and their counsel. He is dumb and hard of hearing. However he was able to express that he has filed a written statement, by signs and physical gestures. He also expressed that Sri Ambrish Kumar a minor of 7 years age was adopted by him. His expressions are not very clear. Yet he cannot be said to be prima facie an idiot. As such his written statement filed by him is accepted provisionally and his guardian Sri Raghunath Singh is discharged." 7. The lower appellate court has in its consideration of the evidence on the record relied mainly on the evidence of (P.W. 1) Shri Soharat Tripathi, who was a qualified Vaidya holding the degree of A.M.S. and had given a certificate on 26th June 1961 which had been filed before the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 482, and a copy of which (Fact. 4) had been filed in the suit giving rise to the present second appeal. 4) had been filed in the suit giving rise to the present second appeal. It has found that although Bhagwati Prasad could not be said to be insane yet he was not a person of sound mind. On an examination of the reasons given by the lower appellate court for its said finding, in the light of the correct exposition of the provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1966 as to the requirement that a Hindu who wants to take a child in adoption must be person of sound mind, as enunciated in Mullas Hindu Law in the passage quoted above, I am of the opinion that the approach of the lower appellate court was erroneous in law and its finding that Bhagwati Prasad was not a person of sound mind and did not, therefore, have the requisite capacity to take a child in adoption is vitiated by the said wrong approach, as also by other errors of law. 8. Bhagwati Prasad, deceased defendant No. 3 was examined (P W. 1) Shri Soharat Tripathi on 26th June 1961, which was more that 5 years before the date of the alleged adoption. His certificate, Ext. 4 is tot he following effect : "I have examined Sri Bhagwati Prasad S/o Sri Ram.Lochan Lal. ... ............About 60 years old .................brought by his third brother Banwari Lal, and found that he had suffered from congenital Aphaisa .................. He is also acretune (sic) of goiter by his facial expression He seems an insane. He could not understand the words spoken by other." Explaining congenital aphasia and Goiter, he stated in his examination is chief on oath. [HINDI MATTER] 9. A perusal of the above statement of (P.W. 1) Shri Soharat Tripathi is sufficient to show that Bhagwati Prasad was not insane, or a person of unsound mind when be was examined in June 1961 The note of his observation made by the learned Munsif about the physical and mental condition of Bhagwati Prasad when he appeared in court on 7th February, 1970 also shows that he was not a person of unsound mind. There is no evidence to show that Bhagwati Prasad was of unsound mind when he adopted the defendant-appellant in September, 1966. There is no evidence to show that Bhagwati Prasad was of unsound mind when he adopted the defendant-appellant in September, 1966. On the other hand the evidence shows that he was capable of moving about and looking after himself, his only defect was that he could not speak or hear properly. That does not amount to unsoundness of mind. The lower appellate court was in error in holding that Bhagwati Prasad was a person of unsound mind. 10. About the finding as to the alleged fraud in the execution of the registered deed of adoption, less said the better. Bhagwati Prasad had not sought to avoid the deed of adoption on the alleged ground of undue influence said to have been exercised by Raghunath Singh, defendant- respondent No. 3 through Bhagwati Prasad's brother Banwari Lal. The lower appellate court has further discounted the evidence of the partics and the necessary ceremonies of adoption. Here also the lower appellate court completely lost sight of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, which lays down that whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force, is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. The evidence relied upon by the lower appellate court falls far short of the heavy burden that lay on the plaintiffs of discovering the performance of the necessary ceremones of adoption. Indeed the finding of the lower appellate court on this point is vitiated for being based more on conjectures and surmises than on the evidence on the record. 11. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit is restored with costs throughout.