JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decreed by the learned trial court on October 15, 1979 and the decree was upheld in the appeal by the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri by his judgment dated November 20, 1921. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the courts below wrongly held the bar under Section 34(5) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act applicable to cases of succession only and not to mutation by transfer, that the sale-deed relied upon by the plaintiff was forged and fictitious and no consideration has passed, that the defendant has perfected title by Adverse possession but the learned Commissioner had not considered these two aspects and gave no finding. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that even in case of transfer if the suit was for ejectment also, no bar under Section 34(5) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was applicable vide ruling reported in 1977 R.D. 200 and that the sale deed was valid and no title matured by adverse possession. 4. No doubt the learned Commissioner has not given proper consideration to the findings of fact involved, it is deficiently brief and is, therefore, no judgment in the eye of lay. Confirming the trial court findings without consideration of evidence at all does make out a question of law and it becomes possible to interfere with the findings of fact also in this appeal, if necessary. 5. The question of sale-deed being fictitious on the ground of no consideration paid was considered in detail by the learned trial court and found to be not proved. It is registered sale-deed dated October 10, 1973 which says in the body of the sale-deed itself that consideration Rs. 2400/- had been paid in full for repayment of Rs. 1000/- loan taken by Sadanu and the rest amount for personal expenses. The vendor Sadanu is alive and the sale-deed itself is not denied. If it was a fraud of non-payment it could have been got cancelled by a competent court which was not done. In such case of fraud, the sale deed can only be said to be voidable and not void. Therefore, it remains valid. The vendor Sadanu is alive and the sale-deed itself is not denied. If it was a fraud of non-payment it could have been got cancelled by a competent court which was not done. In such case of fraud, the sale deed can only be said to be voidable and not void. Therefore, it remains valid. 6. The Dharamputranama dated June 12, 1968 also is not helpful to the defendant. Firstly, it is questionable if Dharamaputra is equal to adopted son. There are Dharam-bhai, Dharam-bahin, Dharam-pita, Dharam-mata, Dharam-putra etc. but adoption of son or daughter only is recognised for succession. In adoption giving and taking of the adopted child by donor and receiver parent along with ceremony is necessary while in Dharam-relations only the tow persons concerned are involved and the parent are not involved. In the instant case, Gujru father of Safari was not the donor and is nowhere in the picture. Therefore, inspite of various admissions by the parties who expected to be benefited by this relationship, I find no sufficient evidence to prove that Safari was adopted son of Sadanu. 7. Even if Safari had the status of Adopted son, the deed dated June 12, 1968 executed by Sadanu makes it clear that is was neither sale nor gift, nor other transfer. The deed is Dharamputranama stressing the relationship and saying that all the property was meant for Safari. No immediate transfer of title is indicated or proved. The land if given in possession of Safari, being in the life-time of Sadanu, it was permissive possession and there was no question of maturing title by Adverse possession against Sadanu till the date October 10, 1973 when Sadanu transferred title by sale in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit having been filed on March 20, 1979, the limitation period had not run out. so this pleas goes. 8. Coming to the only question of law involved, about bar under Section 34(5) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the ruling cited, 1977 R.D. 200, perfectly applied to the instant case. It may be recalled that there was a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Stated soon after the sale deed, due to a dispute on October 15, 1973 and this case was decided on January, 1974 in favour of Safari (plaintiff?) and so the plaintiffs (defendant?) cannot be deemed to have obtained physical possession of the plots in suit. It may be recalled that there was a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Stated soon after the sale deed, due to a dispute on October 15, 1973 and this case was decided on January, 1974 in favour of Safari (plaintiff?) and so the plaintiffs (defendant?) cannot be deemed to have obtained physical possession of the plots in suit. A mutation report in lodged by a person obtaining possession on transfer of any kind of on succession and for want of possession the requirement is not possible and no bar can be applicable. The ruling by the Hon'ble High Court affirms this principles. Therefore, the finding by the courts below was correct, through the reason will differ and will be as above. 9. In consequence, no reason is found sufficient to justify interference with the findings of fact by the courts below, which the learned trial court particularly has arrived at after a full consideration of the aspects involved and all evidence adduced oral and documentary. On the question of law also, the appeal fails. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs.