JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.5A of 2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Dabra District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.104A of 2008 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the adoption deed to be valid against the defendants has been dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as “plaintiff” and the respondents as “defendants”. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendants No.1 and 2 are real brothers of Mayaram and the plot in dispute situated at Laxmanpura, Sausa Ka Chhak, Bujurg, Dabra (which hereinafter would be referred to as “disputed plot”) was of the ownership of Mayaram and he was in it’s possession. It is also not disputed that the Tahsildar Dabra in Case No.78/03-04/A-6 vide order dated 31.5.2008 has directed for mutation of the said plot in favour of the defendants, against which, the appeal filed by the father of the plaintiff before the SDO Dabra has also been dismissed. 3. The facts in brief of the case are that the disputed plot was purchased by Mayaram vide registered sale deed dated 17.4.1982 from Amarsingh and Kashmari Singh for consideration of Rs.1,000/-. The wife of Mayaram died in the year 1993. Since, Mayaram was having no male issue, he adopted the plaintiff on 1.1.1996 who was son of defendant no.2 Gangaram and started residing with him. After death of deceased Mayaram, the plaintiff got his name recorded in the ration card and Panchayat Bujurg as son of deceased Mayaram. But since Mayaram did not adopt any of the four sons of defendant no.1 Bobdia, he got annoyed and hence, with the connivance of panchayat officials, filed an application dated 1.9.2004 for his mutation on the said plot which was allowed by Tahsildar Dabra vide order dated 31.8.2005. But since Mayaram did not adopt any of the four sons of defendant no.1 Bobdia, he got annoyed and hence, with the connivance of panchayat officials, filed an application dated 1.9.2004 for his mutation on the said plot which was allowed by Tahsildar Dabra vide order dated 31.8.2005. Even the appeals filed by the father of the plaintiff have also been dismissed by the SDO and Additional Commissioner and since in the garb of the Tahsildar’s order dated 31.8.2004, the defendant no.1 is trying to take possession of disputed plot without any legal right whereas, plaintiff with his family has been living on the disputed property for 15-20 years and on 16.2.2006 defendant no.1 alont with his sons tried to take the possession forcibly which was reported at PS Dabra at Crime No.110 of 2006, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the relief stated above. 4. The defendant no.1 by filing the written statement denied the plaint averments except the admitted facts stating that the right to the half of the disputed plot was received in succession by defendants No.1 and 2 after death of Mayaram and no such adoption deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff. Even the adoption alleged to be executed at the age of 17 was invalid. It was further averred that the defendant No.1 is in possession of half of the share and has also applied for construction before the Nagar Panchayat. Even the name of the plaintiff in voter list has been entered under the paternity of Gangaram and not Mayaram. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 5. The defendant No.2 though appeared through his counsel before the trial Court but did not file any written statement in the matter, hence, he was proceeded against ex parte. 6. After framing of the four issues, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants as stated above. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and perused the record. 9. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned Courts below have committed error in disbelieving the adoption of the appellant/plaintiff whereas, the plaintiff has successfully proved by his evidence that he was adopted by Mayaram and the process of adoption was performed by his parents and adoptive father as per legal requirements. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment in Madhusudan Das Vs. Smt. Narayani Bai and Others AIR 1983 SC 114 has urged that the judgments of both the Courts below be set-aside and the plaintiff be declared as adopted son of Mayaram. 10. Arguments were considered. 11. Indisputably, the disputed plot was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 17.4.1982 by the deceased Mayaram who was brother of Bobdiya defendant no.1 and Gangaram defendant No.2 father of the plaintiff. Mayaram died on 22.9.1997 issueless and his wife passed away before the death of Mayaram. As per the plaintiff’s pleadings, the plaintiff was adopted by Mayaram when the plaintiff was 17 years old. The entire story of plaintiff’s adoption is based on oral evidence. For a moment, if the evidence produced by the plaintiff is believed, the allegations cannot be held valid because, as per section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a child (he/she) above, the age of 15 years cannot be adopted unless proved by the customs or traditions prevailing in the society. In the instant case, the plaintiff has neither pleaded in his pleadings nor has he produced any evidence in this regard. In view of the aforesaid provision of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is inferred that the alleged adoption of the plaintiff is not valid. 12. The story of adoption does not appear to be credible as the plaintiff himself did not claim to be adopted son of Mayaram after his death in the year 1997. The said story was introduced belatedly in the year 2004 when the dispute regarding mutation arose between Bobdiya and Gangaram father of the plaintiff. 12. The story of adoption does not appear to be credible as the plaintiff himself did not claim to be adopted son of Mayaram after his death in the year 1997. The said story was introduced belatedly in the year 2004 when the dispute regarding mutation arose between Bobdiya and Gangaram father of the plaintiff. Moreover, the name of plaintiff’s adoptive father Mayaram has not been mentioned anywhere on the record before filing the suit. On the contrary, in the voters list of 2004, the name of his (plaintiff’s) father has been entered as Gangaram. Considering the aforesaid facts and evidence on record, it is concluded that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence have not erred in dismissing the suit. Since there are concurrent findings of the Court below, no substantial question of the law crops up here for admission. Even the judgment rendered by Hon’ble apex Court cited above in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai and ors. (supra) is of no help to the appellant. 13. Hence, the appeal being meritless and devoid of concrete substance, is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to the costs. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly.