JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- This is second appeal by plaintiff Sohan Lal, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Sohan Lal appellant filed suit against Hazari Ram defendant (since deceased and now represented by respondents as his legal representatives) alleging that defendant Hazari Ram and his wife adopted the plaintiff as his son on 17 Asadh Samvat 2015 i.e. in the year 1958. The defendant also appointed the plaintiff as his heir and gifted away the suit land to the plaintiff at the time of adoption. The plaintiff was also put in possession of the suit land. Writing regarding adoption was made in a bahi. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land, which was previously owned by defendant Hazari Ram and that now, the defendant has nothing to do with the said land. Revenue entries depicting defendant to be owner in possession of the suit land are wrong and are liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff. Permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner. 3. Defendant Hazari Ram controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that plaintiff was never adopted by the defendant and his wife. The defendant had a natural son namely Prabhu born on 13.07.1957, who was alive at the time of alleged adoption of plaintiff and therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant to adopt the plaintiff. Gift of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff was also denied. The defendant alleged that he had already bequeathed his entire property in favour of his brother’s sons (respondents herein), vide registered Will dated 09.08.1984. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff has proved bahi entry, vide which the plaintiff was adopted by defendant and his wife and therefore, adoption of the plaintiff by defendant and his wife is proved. The contention cannot be accepted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff has proved bahi entry, vide which the plaintiff was adopted by defendant and his wife and therefore, adoption of the plaintiff by defendant and his wife is proved. The contention cannot be accepted. Both the courts below have appreciated the evidence properly and come to concurrent finding that adoption of the plaintiff by defendant and his wife is not proved. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff’s claim was that the defendant gifted the suit land to the plaintiff. However, learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there is no mention of the gift of suit land by defendant in favour of plaintiff in the aforesaid bahi entry. Moreover, suit land could not be gifted without registered gift deed. Admittedly, no gift deed was executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff regarding gift of the suit land. 8. It may be added that the defendant had his natural son when the alleged adoption of plaintiff took place. Consequently, there was no occasion for the defendant to have adopted the plaintiff. 9. The defendant has himself pleaded that he had bequeathed his entire property in favour of his nephews (present respondents) vide registered Will dated 09.08.1984. The defendant died during the pendency of the suit and the respondents herein were impleaded as his legal representatives. In view of the aforesaid Will also, the respondents succeeded to the suit property from the defendant Hazari Ram and consequently, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument alone that the plaintiff had been adopted by the defendant and his wife, the plaintiff would not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit land. 10. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ------------