JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - C. M. No. 4676-C of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Natha Singh @ Nathu Singh, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of this second appeal. 2. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against respondents-defendants alleging that the plaintiff is biological son of Shanti Devi and Nihal Singh. After death of Nihal Singh, Shanti Devi performed karewa marriage with Hakam Singh vide karewanama dated 15.09.1978. By the same document, Hakam Singh also accepted the plaintiff as his son. The plaintiff thus claimed to be adopted son of Hakam Singh, and therefore, is his sole natural heir after the death of Hakam Singh as well as of Shanti Devi subsequently. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner of the suit land left by Hakam Singh. The plaintiff claimed possession thereof. The plaintiff also challenged inheritance mutation of Hakam Singh sanctioned in favour of defendants allegedly on the basis of unregistered Will dated 28.07.1999. The plaintiff challenged the said Will also to be illegal and null and void. The plaintiff also claimed a registered Will dated 12.11.1992 in his own favour allegedly executed by Hakam Singh. 3. Defendants resisted the suit and controverted the plaint allegations. 4. Defendants no.1 and 2 are brothers of Hakam Singh, whereas defendant no.3 is sister of Hakam Singh. Mukhtiar Singh – father of defendants no.4 and 5 was also brother of Hakam Singh. Defendants alleged that defendants no.1 to 3 and Mukhtiar Singh are the only natural legal heirs of Hakam Singh being his brothers and sister and inheritance mutation of Hakam Singh was accordingly sanctioned in their favour on the basis of natural inheritance and not on the basis of alleged unregistered Will dated 28.07.1999. It was also pleaded that registered Will dated 12.11.1992, set up by the plaintiff, had already been revoked by Hakam Singh vide registered deed dated 26.06.1995. It was denied that Shanti Devi performed karewa marriage with Hakam Singh or that the plaintiff was adopted by Hakam Singh. It was alleged that there could be no valid karewa marriage between Shanti Devi and Hakam Singh because they were strangers belonging to different castes, whereas karewa marriage of a widow can be performed only with some family member of her deceased husband. Various other pleas were also raised. It was alleged that there could be no valid karewa marriage between Shanti Devi and Hakam Singh because they were strangers belonging to different castes, whereas karewa marriage of a widow can be performed only with some family member of her deceased husband. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendants no.3 and 4 also filed similar written statement whereas defendant no.5 was ex-parte. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo, vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2011, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff also stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2012. Feeling still dissatisfied, plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff-appellant has been depicted to be son of Hakam Singh in different documents including ration card, voter’s card, nomination in life insurance policy etc. The contention is not sufficient to hold the plaintiff to be adopted son of Hakam Singh. Status of son or adopted son cannot be conferred merely by mentioning in documents, as mentioned herein before. Status of son can be acquired by birth, whereas status of adopted son can be acquired by legal and valid adoption. In the instant case, however, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence worth the name to depict that there was any adoption ceremony of giving the plaintiff by his mother to Hakam Singh or of taking the plaintiff by Hakam Singh. In the absence of any adoption ceremony, it cannot be said that plaintiff had been adopted by Hakam Singh. 8. It is also undisputed that plaintiff’s biological mother Shanti Devi and Hakam Singh belonged to different castes and they were strangers. Consequently, there could be no valid karewa marriage between them as there can be valid karewa marriage of a widow only with family member of her deceased husband. In addition to it, there is no pleading or evidence of performance of any necessary ceremonies of marriage of Shanti Devi with Hakam Singh in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act. 9. It is thus manifest that there was no valid karewa marriage of Shanti Devi with Hakam Singh nor there was any adoption of plaintiff by Hakam Singh as his son. 10. 9. It is thus manifest that there was no valid karewa marriage of Shanti Devi with Hakam Singh nor there was any adoption of plaintiff by Hakam Singh as his son. 10. In view of the aforesaid, defendants no.1 to 3 and Mukhtiar Singh, being brothers and sister of Hakam Singh, who was unmarried and issueless, were his only natural legal heirs, and therefore, inheritance mutation of Hakam Singh has been rightly sanctioned in their favour. The said mutation was not sanctioned on the basis of alleged unregistered Will dated 28.07.1999, as pleaded by the plaintiff. On the contrary, the said mutation was sanctioned on the basis of natural inheritance in favour of defendants no.1 to 3 and Mukhtiar Singh. 11. It may also be added that Shanti Devi had also filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Hakam Singh for maintenance. In the said petition also, Shanti Devi was not held to be wife of Hakam Singh, although maintenance was granted to her on admission of Hakam Singh. 12. It is thus manifest that the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to non-suit the plaintiff is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. On the other hand, the said finding is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on the basis of evidence on record. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant any interference. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------