S. N. PHUKAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court dated 23-1-1984 passed in Title Appeal No. 120 of 1984. By the impugned judgment, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 8-9-1981 passed in Title Suit No. 396 of 1978. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are as follows :-The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, filed the suit for declaration that he is the adopted son of Padmanava Satapathy and that defendant-respondent No. 1 Lingaraj Satapathy was never taken in adoption by the said Padmanava Satapathy. According to the plaintiff, late Padmanava Satapathy, having remained without any issue for a long time after the death of his only daughter, decided to adopt a son with a view to perpetuate the line of succession. Therefore, he requested the father of the plaintiff, namely, Nisamani Satapathy, to give the plaintiff in adoption to him, which was accepted. On a Sripanchami day in the month of Magh, according to the plaintiff, the adoption took place and there was giving and taking ceremony. Padamanava, the adoptive father of the plaintiff, performed his Upanayan ceremony when he was nine years old. The marriage of the plaintiff was also performed when he was 21 years old by late Padamanava Satapathy. The plaintiff helped Padmanava Satapathy in discharging priestly duties and in agricultural operations. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 2, Indramani Satapathy, was not related to Padmanava Satapathy, but being a close neighbour and with an eye on the property of Padmanava Satapathy started instigating Padmanava against the plaintiff. Padmanava died in the year 1971 and the plaintiff performed his last funeral rites. During the settlement operations, defendant No. 2 tried to get the properties of Padmanava recorded in the name of defendant No. 1, for which the plaintiff had to raise objection. Defendant No. 2, for the first time, preferred a deed before the Assistant Settlement Officer alleging that it was executed by late Padmanava acknowledge adoption of defendant No. 2 as his son. Relying on the said document, the Settlement Officer recorded the lands of Padmanava in the name of defendant No. 1 in his capacity as the adopted son. It has been pleaded that the deed in question is a fraudulent one. Relying on the said document, the Settlement Officer recorded the lands of Padmanava in the name of defendant No. 1 in his capacity as the adopted son. It has been pleaded that the deed in question is a fraudulent one. As the existence of the said deed affects the rights of the plaintiff over the landed property of his adoptive father Padmanava, he was compelled to file the suit. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2. They filed a joint written statement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was never taken in adoption by Padmanava. Padmanava had two daughters through his wife Gouri Devi. Both of them died unmarried. In 1940, the last daughter died and thereafter Gouri also died. According to the defendants, Manguni, Chintamani and Nisamani were brothers and the plaintiff is the only son of Nisamani. Plaintiff lost his mother when he was child. Nisamani thereafter left for Rangapur in East Bengal where he was serving as a cook. He died there unnoticed by his relatives. Plaintiff remained under the care and custody of Manguni and Chintamani. They wanted to appropriate the share of Nisamani in the ancestral property to the exclusion of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came of age, they sent him to Mirjapur where he is living as the illatum son-in-law of Managovind Misra. Taking advantage of the fact that Padmanava had no male issue, Maguni and Chintamani described the plaintiff as the adopted son of Padmanava in some documents. According to the defendants, defendant No. 2 is an agent of Padmanava, who took defendant No. 1 in adoption as son when defendant No. 1 was three days old. The formal ceremony of giving and taking took place on the 21st day after the birth of defendant No. 1. On 26-11-1968 Padmanava executed the registered deed acknowledging the adoption of defendant No. 1 as his son. In the same year also, he performed the Upanayan ceremony of defendant No. 1. Thereafter, he acted as the father and guardian of defendant No. 1 for all purposes till his death. It has been stated that the sons of Naguni and Chintamani grew jealous and did not like defendant No. 1 to stay in the house of Padmanava. Therefore, defendant No. 2 came and kept defendant No. 1 with him. Thereafter, he acted as the father and guardian of defendant No. 1 for all purposes till his death. It has been stated that the sons of Naguni and Chintamani grew jealous and did not like defendant No. 1 to stay in the house of Padmanava. Therefore, defendant No. 2 came and kept defendant No. 1 with him. The adoption of the plaintiff by Padmanava as son in the year 1929 has been denied as also his Upanayan and marriage ceremony, as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Padmanava. He remained in possession of the properties belonging to Padmanava and got the same recorded in his name in the settlement operation and the lands of Nisamani have been recorded in the name of the plaintiff as his son. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff was always residing in the house of his father-in-law and he never possessed the land of Padmanava. ( 4 ) THE trial Court framed as many as four issues. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are important which are quoted below :-"2. Is the plaintiff adopted to Padmanav Satapathy?3. Is D. 1 adopted to Padmanav Satpathy?" ( 5 ) THE above two issues were taken together by the trial Court. Plaintiff examined five witnesses and produced some documents. Defendants also examined five witnesses and produced documentary evidence. ( 6 ) THE lower appellate Court held that onus is on the plaintiff and accordingly scrutinised the evidence of the plaintiff. It also did so in case of witnesses for the defendants. As both parties have gone into trial knowing the case of each other, the question has to be decided on preponderance of evidence. ( 7 ) IN a second appeal, the scope of this Court is limited and confined to law points only. However, if the lower appellate Court without giving due importance to the finding of the trial Court regarding adoption has reversed the same, this Court can interfere. ( 8 ) THE Apex Court in Radha Nath Seal v. Haripada Jena, AIR 1971 SC 1049 held that if the first appellate Court fails to consider material evidence in shape of documents and makes good deal of assumptions of fact, the High Court can interfere in second appeal. ( 8 ) THE Apex Court in Radha Nath Seal v. Haripada Jena, AIR 1971 SC 1049 held that if the first appellate Court fails to consider material evidence in shape of documents and makes good deal of assumptions of fact, the High Court can interfere in second appeal. This Court in Nimei Charan Baral v. Uttak Bewa (1973) 1 Cut LR 68, has held that law is well settled that one who alleges adoption takes upon himself the onus of establishing it, although in a suit for declaration by the plaintiff that the defendant is not the adopted son, the initial onus is on the plaintiff. But this onus being a negative onus can be discharged by bare denial. In Arakhita Swain v. Kandhuni Swain, AIR 1983 Orissa 199, this Court held that S. 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act lays down a rule of presumption that where a duly registered document is produced before the Court purporting to record an adoption already made and the document is signed both by the person taking in adoption and the person giving in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption was made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. It was also held that where the registered deed recording an adoption was not signed by the person giving the child in adoption, the presumption under S. 16 as to there being an adoption in compliance with the provisions of the Act could not be raised as one of the essential conditions was wanting. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the adoption took place in the year 1929. But, according to the defendants, adoption of defendant No. 1 took place on 2-8-1952, i. e. after the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 came into force. So, this Court has to decide whether adoption of defendant No. 1 is in accordance with the above Act or not. ( 10 ) THE lower appellate Court did not accept the claim of adoption by the plaintiff on the following grounds : (1) Plaintiff was the only son of his parents and, therefore, it is improbable that he was given in adoption to Padmanava as there was none in the family of Nisamani to perpetuate the line of succession. ( 10 ) THE lower appellate Court did not accept the claim of adoption by the plaintiff on the following grounds : (1) Plaintiff was the only son of his parents and, therefore, it is improbable that he was given in adoption to Padmanava as there was none in the family of Nisamani to perpetuate the line of succession. (2) At the relevant time, the adoptive was hardly 30 years of age and his wife was too young. Prior to the alleged adoption, a daughter was born to Padmanava. Therefore, the possibility of having adopted the plaintiff is far too remote. (3) From the records-of-rights filed by the defendants, it is seen that the plaintiff was described as the son of his natural father Nisamani and not Padmanava. (4) It has also been stated that the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the properties left by his natural father. (5) In the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Bansidhar Satapathy on 7-4-1971 vide Ext. E, he has been described as the son of Nisamani Satapathy. In his deposition while admitting the execution of Ext. E, the plaintiff pleads ignorance about the description of his parentage, which does not inspire any belief. Therefore, Ext. E disproves the adoption as claimed by the plaintiff. (6) Though in the sale deeds, Exts. 2 to 4, either executed by the plaintiff or executed by some other persons in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been described as the son of Padmanava, these documents being private documents, in absence of any cogent evidence of adoption, would not confer any status of adoption on the plaintiff. (7) Ext. 5, the letter alleged to have been written by Padmanava to P. W. 2 is not acceptable. ( 11 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2 in respect of the letter, Ext. 5, was rejected by the lower appellate Court on the ground that he preserved that letter only and not other letters. The lower appellate Court has also considered the contents of the letter. The evidence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 was rejected by the lower appellate Court after elaborate discussion. 5, was rejected by the lower appellate Court on the ground that he preserved that letter only and not other letters. The lower appellate Court has also considered the contents of the letter. The evidence of P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 was rejected by the lower appellate Court after elaborate discussion. While discussing the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff as well as the witnesses for the defendants, the lower appellate Court has observed that the plaintiff not having proved with regard to his own adoption, and also not having disproved the adoption of defendant No. 1, could not have depended on the weakness of the defence. ( 12 ) IT has already been stated that the case has to be decided on the preponderance of evidence. The scope of interference by the High Court in second appeal has also been indicated. On perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it cannot be said that there was any non-consideration or misconsideration of the evidence on record. ( 13 ) EXT. A is the registered deed dated 26-11-1968 wherein Padmanava made an acknowledgment of the adoption of defendant No. 1 by him. In the case in hand, requisites of valid adoption as per S. 6 of the Act are present. All the provisions of the Act have also been duly complied with. Ext. A is not a deed of adoption but a deed executed by Padmanava acknowledging the fact that he had adopted defendant No. 1 when the letter was a baby. Therefore, S. 16 of the Act is not applicable to this deed, but it can be used for collateral purpose. In view of this registered deed, even if the scribe was not examined and Padmanava is dead, it has to be accepted in evidence unless it is proved by the plaintiff that it is a fraudulent document. There is no such evidence on record. Therefore, the lower appellate Court rightly relied on this document. In the sale deeds, Ext. 1 executed on 7-4-1981 and Ext. 2 executed on 23-2-1965, the plaintiff has been shown as the son of Padmanava. Similarly, in the sale deed Ext. 8 executed on 5-3-1981, which has been filed by the defendants , the plaintiff has been shown as the son of Nisamani and not Padmanava. On the other hand, in Ext. 1 executed on 7-4-1981 and Ext. 2 executed on 23-2-1965, the plaintiff has been shown as the son of Padmanava. Similarly, in the sale deed Ext. 8 executed on 5-3-1981, which has been filed by the defendants , the plaintiff has been shown as the son of Nisamani and not Padmanava. On the other hand, in Ext. E series, which are Pattas, defendant No. 1 has been shown as the son of Padmanava. Though according to the plaintiff-appellant all these revenue documents were subsequent to the dispute, but he has not produced a single piece of paper of revenue record showing that he is the adopted son of Padmanava. In the present case, the oral evidence is only of interested persons. So, the lower appellate Court rightly put reliance on documentary evidence. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in this second appeal and the lower appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Costs on the parties. Petition dismissed.