JUDGMENT The plaintiff/appellant has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Courts below concurrently dismissing his suit for declaration of title. Vide order dated 21.9.1981, this appeal was admitted for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether adoption should have been presumed in favour of the appellant under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act?" The defendant/respondent No.2 Chakrapan is the recorded Bhumiswami of an agricultural holding which has been subject- matter of the proceedings under the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960. The land was found to be surplus and hence the surplus has been directed to be vested in the State. The defendant/respondent No.2, as well as the plaintiff/appellant set-up a claim before the Competent Authority under the Ceiling Act submitting that the plaintiff/appellant was the adopted son of Chakrapan and being a member of Joint Hindu family was entitled to one-half share in the holding. The story of adoption was not accepted by the Ceiling Authority. Admittedly, Chakrapan did not have any natural issue. The M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 came into force on 15th November 1961. The bill was published on 19th September 1959. The proceedings in respect of the suit holding were commenced sometime in the year 1974-75. On 20.9.75, that is, during the pendency of the proceedings, a deed of adoption was executed and got registered on 27.9.1975 reciting adoption of the plaintiff/appellant said to have taken place at about 20 years before. The plea of the State is that this deed has been brought into existence only for the purpose of defeating the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the Courts below have erred in not raising a presumption u/s. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and extending benefit thereof to the appellant. Section 16 abovesaid reads as under:- "16. 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." No doubt section 16 raises a presumption but it is not an irrebuttable presumption of law. The presumption is capable of being dislodged on proof of circumstances which would negative the story of adoption. The Courts below have rightly taken into consideration volumes of circumst.1nces speaking volumes against the availability of presumption, also destroying its value. The deed of adoption was not executed simultaneously with the adoption evidenced by it. Admittedly, it has come into existence on expiry of a period of twenty years from the date of alleged adoption and that too during the pendency of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Kedarsingh (P. W. 1) himself admitted during his cross-examination that in spite of the alleged adoption the name of his natural father was recorded in the school where he had taken education. The plaintiff's natural father Matadin, had three sons, that is the plaintiff had two brothers from the same father. Matadin had expired sometime in the year 1978. The least which the plaintiff could have done was to produce entries relating to mutation on the land held by his rather to show that his name was not mutated consequent to his having been adopted to Chakrapan. Not a single piece of evidence has been brought on record to infer that the oral adoption was at any time acted upon or recognised prior to the commencement of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the Courts below cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner whatsoever. Whether or not an adoption had taken place is primarily a question of fact. No case is made out calling for interference with the finding recorded by the Courts below. The presumption available u/s. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act stands well rebutted. The appeal is held to be devoid of any merit. It is dismissed. Judgments and decree of the Courts below are confirmed. However, the patties are directed to bear the costs as incurred in this Court. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if precertified.