JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against a reversing decision. Suit was filed for declaration that the Plaintiff is the adopted son of Defendant No. 1 and for restraining Defendant No. 1 from alienating the disputed property. It was alleged in the plaint that though the Plaintiff is the natural born son of Ratnakar Swain, he was taken in adoption by Defendant No. 1 and her husband in the year 1950, but subsequently due to some misunderstanding Defendant No. 1 disclaimed the adoption. 2. Initially, Defendant No. l had filed a separate written statement challenging the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that the husband of Defendant No. 1 had died in the year 1942 and as such, the question of adoption of the Plaintiff in the year 1950 by the husband of Defendant No. 1 did not arise. It was further stated that a document purporting to be the acknowledgment of adoption was obtained from Defendant No. 1. 3. Defendant No. 2 who had admittedly purchased the suit land from Defendant Ne. 1 filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. Defendant No. 3 who is alleged to have taken some land from Defendant No. 1 on the basis of a gift deed also filed a written statement challenging the allegations made in the plaint. 4. Subsequently, an additional written statement was purported to be filed by Defendant No. 1 wherein it was indicated that Defendant No. 3 had been adopted by Defendant No. 1. It is to be noted here that subsequently a petition has been filed in the High Court stating that such additional written statement had been fraudulently obtained from Defendant No. 1. However, it is made clear that question of validity of transaction between Defendant Nos. 2 and 1 and the question as to whether the Defendant No. 1 had adopted Defendant No. 3, not being germane to the present litigation have not been decided in any manner in this appeal. 5. The trial court found that the Plaintiff was adopted by Defendant No. 1 and her husband and the gift deed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 3 was valid and refused to grant any permanent injunction. 6. Against the aforesaid decision of the trial court, Defendant No. 1 filed appeal challenging the declaration relating to adoption. 5. The trial court found that the Plaintiff was adopted by Defendant No. 1 and her husband and the gift deed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No. 3 was valid and refused to grant any permanent injunction. 6. Against the aforesaid decision of the trial court, Defendant No. 1 filed appeal challenging the declaration relating to adoption. The Plaintiff filed cross-objection claiming that the gift deed should have been found to be invalid and adjunction should have been granted. 7. The appellate court allowed the appeal and held that the Plaintiff was not the adopted son of Defendant No. 1 and her husband. The appellate court, however, did not give any specific finding relating to the cross-objection. 8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal it was indicated that the questions indicated in Ground Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the memorandum of appeal raised substantial questions of law. Those grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal are quoted hereunder: 1. For that the Appellate judgment is vitiated for not considering and disposing of the Cross-Objection filed by the Appellant. 3. For that the adoption being more than 30 years old and most of the witnesses to the giving and taking having expired the evidence of the Barber and neighboring argots should have been considered enough. 4. For that Ext. 2 is the deed a cancellation of Ext. 1 the deed of acknowledgment of adoption. Hence Ext. 2 which was admittedly executed by Defendant No. 1 cannot be considered to have been fraudulently got executed. The learned appellate Court did not take the recital in Ext. 2 into consideration. It may be stated that Ext. 2 admits the execution of Ext. 1 but cancels the deed on the ground that the Plaintiff is quarrelling with her. 9. The first question relates to non-consideration of Cross-Objection. In view of the reversal of the decision relating to adoption, the lower appellate court might not have thought it necessary to consider the Cross-Objection. Since the question of adoption is being challenged in this appeal, the question of non-consideration of the Cross-Objection filed in the lower appellate court may crop up in the Second Appeal only if it is ultimately found that the present Appellant is the adopted son of Defendant No. 1. Since the question of adoption is being challenged in this appeal, the question of non-consideration of the Cross-Objection filed in the lower appellate court may crop up in the Second Appeal only if it is ultimately found that the present Appellant is the adopted son of Defendant No. 1. If on the other hand, it is found that the Appellant is not the adopted son, non-consideration of the Cross-Objection by the lower appellate court is of no consequence. In such view of the matter, it is more appropriate to concentrate on the other two grounds which relate to the question of adoption. 10. The question of adoption is essentially a mixed question of fact and law. The lower appellate court on consideration of the evidence has reversed the finding of the trial court and has disbelieved the story of adoption. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted the recital in the subsequent deed of cancellation as per Ext. 2 has not been considered by the lower appellate court and the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated by non-consideration of important materials on record. In the present case, the two witnesses have been disbelieved by the lower appellate court on relevant grounds. It may be that another appellate court possibly would have taken a different view of the matter, but erroneous appreciation of evidence is not a substantial ground on the basis of which the finding of the lower appellate court can be reversed. Besides, the lower appellate court has noticed certain basic features in the case which go against the story of adoption. The Plaintiff has relied upon the deed of acknowledgment of adoption purportedly executed by Defendant No. 1. In the said document of Ext. 1, nothing has been mentioned about the year of adoption. On the other hand, it is the specific case of Defendant No. 1 that her husband had died in the year 1942. There is nothing on record to discard such statement. In case the husband died in the year 1942 the question of adoption by the husband could not have arisen. In fact, the deed of acknowledgment indicates as if the widow had taken the Plaintiff in adoption after obtaining the permission from her husband during his life time. The basic contradiction falsifies the entire case of the Plaintiff relating to adoption. In fact, the deed of acknowledgment indicates as if the widow had taken the Plaintiff in adoption after obtaining the permission from her husband during his life time. The basic contradiction falsifies the entire case of the Plaintiff relating to adoption. Moreover, after the alleged adoption, the Plaintiff was described as the son of his natural father not only in the document relating to admission in School but also in a subsequent sale deed. There is no other document showing that the Plaintiff was the adopted son of Defendant No. 1 and her husband. If the Plaintiff would have been adopted in the year 1950, the name of his adoptive father would have been included in the School Admission Register as well as in the subsequent sale deed which have been proved as Exts. A, B and C. The lower appellate court has analyzed the aforesaid circumstances and rejected the plea of adoption. The finding not being perverse in nature, cannot be reversed in the Second Appeal. 11. In such view of the matter, there is no merit in the Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed relating to the genuineness of the subsequent additional written statement filed by Defendant No. 1. Similarly, since the Plaintiff is found not to be the adopted son, he has no locus stand to challenge the alienations by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendants 2 and 3 which are binding on the Plaintiff. There will be no order as to costs. Second appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed