D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs. Baru and Rulha filed a suit for cancellation of registered adoption-deed dated 19-5-1977 executed by Yadram in favour of Sadhu, defendant No. 3, aged about 8 years on the date of execution with other consequential reliefs. The plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid adoption deed being illegal, null and void. Relevant pedigree has been set up in the plaint. Tej Pal, one of the defendants, was living in village and was visiting Yadram frequently. He used to administer liquor to him. Yadram indulged in bad habits. It was alleged that Tej pal in collusion with Hriday Ram and Sube Ram obtained fictitious adoption-deed from Yad Ram. On the strength of adoption-deed Tej Pal took possession over the house of Yadram and also sold his movable properties. Whereabouts of Yadram thereafter was not known. It was apprehended that Yadram was either abducted or murdered. First information report was lodged with the police and case was registered against Tej Pal. The plaintiffs are cousin brothers of Yadram. They claimed to be reversioners and heirs of Yadram. It was alleged that Yadram was a man of unsound mind and no ceremony of adoption took place at the time of adoption. ( 3 ) THE suit was contested on the ground that ceremonies were performed at the time of adoption and that the adoption deed is valid and legal. Yadram was on inimical terms with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs wanted to grab the property of Yadram. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to sue. ( 4 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit and cancelled the adoption-deed and also granted consequential reliefs. An appeal was preferred which was allowed and the judgment and decree of that trial Court were set aside. It is, therefore, this second appeal. ( 5 ) AT the time of admission of the second appeal only two questions were formulated, which are as under: (i) Whether the appellant had a right to sue? (ii) Whether the actual caremony of giving and taking had not been proved in accordance with law? ( 6 ) NONE appeared from the side of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants was heard and record was perused. (ii) Whether the actual caremony of giving and taking had not been proved in accordance with law? ( 6 ) NONE appeared from the side of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants was heard and record was perused. ( 8 ) THE first question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants had right to sue. For determining this question certain dates are material. The suit was filed on 31-1-1978. The deed of adoption was executed and registered on 19-5-1977. Evidently, the lower appellate Court rightly observed that the appellants are cousins of Yadram. Yadram is executant of the adoption-deed. The lower appellate Court has, therefore, rightly observed that according to Section 171 (f) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act the plaintiffs-appellants could not be the heirs of Yadram. However, according to him under Section 171 (r) of the said Act the appellants being cousins of Yadram would become heirs of Yadram only when the death of Yadram is established. On the point of death of Yadram both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that it is not proved that Yadram died. Likewise. both the Courts below gave concurrent findings that presumption about the death of Yadram could not be drawn because it was not proved that for more than seven years before institution of the suit Yadram was not heard of by the plaintiffs or by near relations. It is also in evidence that an attempt was made to implicate Tej Pal, father of the adopted child, Sadhu, in a abduction case under Section 364, I. P. C. Ultimately, Tej Pal was acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 1978, State v. Tej Pal, under Section 364, I. P. C. by VIth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Abduction was not established nor it was established that Yadram was done to death. As stated earlier, adoption deed was executed in May, 1977. The suit, on the other hand, was filed on 31-1-1978 and at that time seven years period had not completed, hence, presumption of death of Yadram was not rightly drawn by the two Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued that even till today the whereabouts of Yadram are not known, hence, the presumption of death can safely be drawn. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued that even till today the whereabouts of Yadram are not known, hence, the presumption of death can safely be drawn. This contention, however, cannot be accepted for the obvious reason that it is not an information given in second appeal from which presumption of death is to be drawn. On the other hand, it has to be seen whether on the date of the suit this presumption could be drawn and it is only when this presumption was available on the date of the suit that the appellants could be held to be the heirs of Yadram and entitled to challenge the adoption-deed. Since not even three years period expired from the date of adoption to the date of institution of the suit, this presumption could not be drawn and the two Courts below were, therefore, correct in holding that the plaintiffs had no right to sue. ( 9 ) IF they had no right to sue, the appeal was rightly allowed by the lower appellate Court and the suit of the plaintiffs was rightly dismissed. ( 10 ) THE second point for determination is whether the requisite ceremonies for adoption were performed or not. On this ground adoption deed cannot be challenged. The adoption deed is a registered document. Its due execution and registration were proved from the evidence adduced by the defendants. At this juncture presumption available under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 can safely be drawn. Section 16 of the aforesaid Act reads as under:"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption:- 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. "it is thus clear from this section that once a registered adoption deed is produced before any Court recording the factum of adoption and it 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 presumption at the first place is conclusive, but it is rebuttable provided the deed of adoption is disproved. Once a registered deed of adoption was filed, the duty was not of propounder to establish the due execution and registration of the deed. In the adoption deed itself it is mentioned that ceremonies for adoption were performed. The adoption-deed bears signatures of Tej Pal and Yadram. Tej Pal is the father of Sadhu, the adopted child. Yadram was the person who took the child in adoption. It is clearly mentioned that 16 days before the execution of the deed of adoption requisite ceremonies including feasts etc. were performed. In such circumstances, heavy burden lay on the plaintiffs-appellants to disprove the deed of adoption and also disprove that ceremonies were not performed. Simply because Pandit was not examined presumption available and flowing from recitals the adoption deed cannot be negatived nor it can be disproved that no ceremonies were performed. Pandit could be examined by the plaintiffs on whose shoulder the burden lay to prove the factum of adoption, performance of the ceremonies of adoption and proof of due execution and registration of the adoption deed. ( 11 ) THE defendants on the other hand examined the relevant witnesses. On the grounds of minor contradictions here and there in their testimonies they cannot be disbelieved. Minor contradictions are bound to occur due to the lapse of time and memory. The evidence of relevant witnesses examined by the defendants found corroboration from the adoption deed itself. As such the plaintiffs failed in disproving the execution and registration of the adoption deed. They further failed in establishing non performance of the ceremonies for adoption. The adoption deed, therefore, could not be challenged. ( 12 ) COMING to the attack on the adoption deed on the ground of fraud and undue influence evidence on record was rightly appreciated by the two Courts below and it was rightly observed that it could not be proved that adoption deed was executed when Yadram was drunk. Even if it is accepted that Yadram used to take drinks, unless it is established that he was drunk when he executed adoption-deed, such adoption deed cannot be invalidated. ( 13 ) THERE is no evidence that Yadram was of unsound mind when he executed adoption deed. Even if it is accepted that Yadram used to take drinks, unless it is established that he was drunk when he executed adoption-deed, such adoption deed cannot be invalidated. ( 13 ) THERE is no evidence that Yadram was of unsound mind when he executed adoption deed. ( 14 ) SIMILARLY there is no evidence, that Yadram executed adoption deed under undue influence of Tej Pal. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons given above, the adoption deed is not liable to be cancelled. The appeal was, therefore, rightly allowed and judgment and decree of the trial Court were rightly set aside by the lower appellate Court. There is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Since none appeared from the side of respondents, the appellants shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.