JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendant Ganpat and his three sons, Ram Niwas, Parmanand and Zile Singh have filed this second appeal after they were successful in the trial court but unsuccessful in the lower appellate court. 2. Respondent – plaintiff Dayanand filed suit against the defendant-appellants alleging that plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of defendant No.1. Suit land measuring 57 kanals 17 marlas, being 1/3rd share of 173 kanals 11 marlas, is coparcenary property of the parties and, therefore, plaintiff has 1/5th share therein to the extent of 11 kanals 11 marlas. Defendant No.1 has executed release deed dated 1.9.2000 regarding the suit land in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 had no right to execute the said release deed as the suit land is coparcenary property. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that suit land is coparcenary property and he has 1/5th share therein and the aforesaid release deed is null and void qua the rights of the plaintiff. 3. Defendant No.1 in his written statement pleaded that plaintiff had been given in adoption to Chhailu Ram, brother of defendant No.1, 38- 39 years before filing of the written statement. On the death of Chhailu Ram in the year 1993, the plaintiff succeeded to his entire property. In view of adoption of plaintiff by Chhailu Ram, the plaintiff was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land belonging to defendant No.1. The claim of the plaintiff was thus controverted and the release deed was defended as legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Defendants No.2 to 4 also filed similar written statement as that of defendant No.1. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2009 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dcated 20.7.2010, and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this second appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file, including records of the courts below. 7. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dcated 20.7.2010, and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this second appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file, including records of the courts below. 7. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that Ganpat, defendant No.1, has appeared in the witness box as DW6 and stated that he and his wife, i.e., biological parents of the plaintiff had given the plaintiff in adoption to Chhailu Ram (brother of defendant No.1) and that Chhailu Ram had taken the plaintiff in adoption. Similar statement has also been made by Zile Singh, defendant No.4, as DW7. It was contended that the testimony of Ganpat DW6 regarding adoption of the plaintiff by Chhailu Ram was not even challenged in cross examination and is, therefore, deemed to have been admitted. It was also argued that the plaintiff-respondent has not examined any other witness except himself to rebut the defendants’ evidence regarding adoption of plaintiff by Chhailu Ram. 8. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that no witness from neighbourhood or from the village has been examined by defendants to prove alleged adoption of the plaintiff by Chhailu Ram. It was also argued that in all the documents, like ration card, voter identity card, voters’ list and Will executed by Chhailu Ram, the plaintiff has been depicted to be the son of Ganpat, defendant No.1, and therefore, alleged adoption is not proved. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The contention raised by Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff cannot be accepted. Documents referred to by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff have not been proved in evidence and, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. As regards non examination of any witness from the village or neighbourhood by the defendants, there was no necessity of doing so when the defendants have led other cogent evidence. On the contrary, the plaintiff-respondent himself has also not examined any person from the village as a witness to depict that he had not been adopted by Chahilu Ram. There is only self-serving statement of the plaintiff-respondent in this regard. On the contrary, testimony of Ganpat, defendant No.1, who is biological father of the plaintiff carries great probative value and is highly significant. There is only self-serving statement of the plaintiff-respondent in this regard. On the contrary, testimony of Ganpat, defendant No.1, who is biological father of the plaintiff carries great probative value and is highly significant. He has categorically stated that he and his wife had given the plaintiff in adoption to Chhailu Ram who had taken the plaintiff in adoption. Statement of Ganpat, defendant No.1, in this regard has been corroborated by statement of Zile Singh, defendant No.4. Moreover, Ganpat defendant No.1 was not even cross examined regarding his statement in examinationin- chief that plaintiff had been adopted by Chhailu Ram. Consequently, his testimony in this regard is deemed to have been admitted as correct by the plaintiff. 10. It may also be mentioned that admittedly plaintiff has inherited entire property of Chhailu Ram who was none-else but brother of defendant No.1 and uncle of defendants No.2 to 4. This circumstance that only the plaintiff inherited the entire property of Chhailu Ram, also corroborates the version of defendants that the plaintiff had been adopted by Chhailu Ram. This is a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the version of the defendants. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the adoption of plaintiff by Chhailu Ram is duly proved. Finding of the lower appellate court to the contrary is completely perverse and illegal and is based on misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence. The trial court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff stood adopted by Chhailu Ram. In view of said adoption, plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land which belonged to defendant No.1, who transferred the same to defendants No.2 to 4 by way of impugned release deed. 12. Substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal as to whether the finding of the lower appellate court that adoption of plaintiff by Chhailu Ram is not proved, is perverse and illegal and is based on misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence and the same is answered in favour of the defendants/appellants for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 13. Resultantly, the instant second appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, are restored. The parties are, however, left to suffer their respective costs throughout. ------------------