JUDGMENT 1. - For the reasons mentioned in the application for early hearing, the application is allowed and the matter heard. 2. This civil misc. appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1925') has been fried against the order dated 17.4.2002 passed by the District Judge, Sikar (hereinafter 'the Court below') on the appellant-applicant's (hereinafter 'the applicant') action taken under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 whereby a certificate of succession was sought alongwith Smt. Santara the respondent non-applicant (hereinafter 'the non-applicant') in respect of the movable properties of the deceased Bhanwar Lal. By the impugned order dated 17.4.2002 the Court below held that the applicant did not have even an iota of case to the succession certificate as claimed. 3. The applicant's case was that he was the adoptive son of one Bhaguram-an employee of the Indian Railway who had died in harness on 13.4.1996. It was stated that the deceased Bhaguram had a natural born daughter Smt. Santara through his wife Smt. Prabhati Devi. Prabhati had however left Bhaguram about 20 years prior to his death and her whereabouts since not known. It was prayed that consequently a certificate of succession be issued in favour of the applicant Bhanwar Lal himself and Smt. Prabhati Devi holding each entitled to 50% share in the movable assets of the deceased. The Officers of the Northern Railway, Bikanet were impleaded as other defendants in the proceedings apparently for the reason that they were holding the retiral benefits of the deceased Bhaguram. 4. The application was opposed by Smt. Santara, the natural daughter of the deceased Bhaguram. The wife of late Bhaguram and the mother of Smt. Santara was impleaded on her application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. also as a non-applicant alongwith others already on record. The case of the applicants Smt. Santara and Prabhati before the Trial Court was that Smt. Prabhati Devi had never left her husband nor was otherwise divorced but had at all times been in the company of her husband till his death when he was posted at Hanumangarh. It was further stated that the case set up by the applicant about his having been adopted Bhanwar Lal was absolutely false and that he had never been adopted. It was further stated that the case set up by the applicant about his having been adopted Bhanwar Lal was absolutely false and that he had never been adopted. It was stated that Smt. Santara, the natural daughter of the deceased Bhaguram and his nominee in the records of the Railway was alone entitled to be issued the succession on certificate. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed three issues which are reproduced hereunder : " 1- vk;k vkosnd e`rd Hkkxqjke dk nRrd iq= gksus ds dkj.k foHkkx esa mlds uke tek isa'ku] xszP;qVh] cksul izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksus ls okafNr mRrjkf/kdkj izek.k i= izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k vkosnd la[;k 1 ukWfeuh gksus ds dkj.k foHkkx esa e`rd fd tek isa'ku] xzspqVh] cksul fd jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ " 6. Addressing issue No. 1 the learned Trial Court found that no evidence of any probative worth had been laid before the Trial Court to prove that Smt. Prabhati Devi was divorced in accordance with law from Bhaguram. The claim of adoption of the applicant by Bhaguram could not be sustained for the reason that even the witnesses for the applicant had admitted that at the time of purported adoption of the applicant Bhanwar Lal by Bhaguram his wife was absent. The Trial Court held that consequently the adoption claimed was invalid and hit by provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 ;hereinafter 'the Act of 1956') which mandates the consent of a living wife without disability as a pre-condition of a legally valid adoption. The Trial Court therefore held that the applicant Bhanwar Lal was not entitled to the succession certificate. It was accordingly ordered. Succession certificate was instead issued in favour of Smt. Santara alone. Hence this misc. appeal under Section 384 of the let of 1925. 7. Counsel for the appellant merely reiterated the submissions similar to the case set up by the appellant before the Trial Court. Nothing specific to derail the finding of facts and of law by the Trial Court has been advanced either in the memo of appeal or in the course of arguments before this Court. 8. The powers of an Appellate Court are not at large. Nothing specific to derail the finding of facts and of law by the Trial Court has been advanced either in the memo of appeal or in the course of arguments before this Court. 8. The powers of an Appellate Court are not at large. Until the appellant establishes before the Appellate Court that the findings of fact and the consideration of law by the Trial Court was erroneous or its conclusions were arbitrary and unsound, there is no occasion for the Appellate Court to interfere with the same. In my considered opinion the same situation obtains in this appeal. 9. I am of the considered view that there was no evidence before the Trial Court to establish that the applicant Bhanwar Lal has been adopted by Bhaguram. No deed of adoption was proffered. Only false averments and testimony with regard to Smt. Prabhati Devi having left her husband were set up with impunity before the Court below to make out a case of valid adoption in the absence of Smt. Prabhati Devi wife of the deceased Bhaguram and circumvent the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1956. Smt. Santara was admittedly the daughter of the deceased Bhaguram. Her mother Smt. Prabhati Devi had in-fact subsequent to her impleadment on her application relinquished her rights to the succession certificate by stating that the sole successor to the movable assets of deceased was Smt. Santara as she had also been so nominated by Bhaguram in his service records with the Railways. Aside of this, had the applicant Bhanwarlal been adopted as claimed his name would have reflected in the service records of Bhaguram. No case of customary adoption was set up or can warrant consideration in view of the obtaining legal position that subsequent to the Act of 1956 there is no room for such adoption. Section 4 of the Act of 1956 provide that "any text, Rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that land in force immediately before he commencement of that Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in that Act". No other argument has been made. Section 4 of the Act of 1956 provide that "any text, Rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that land in force immediately before he commencement of that Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in that Act". No other argument has been made. I am thus of the considered view that refusal to grant succession certificate in favour of the appellant as claimed and .the grant of succession certificate in favour of Smt. Santara by the Trial Court under order dated 17.4.2002 is therefore, wholly legal and valid. There is no force in this wholly speculative appeal.The misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******