JUDGMENT : R.M. DOSHIT, CJ.:–This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents in First Appeal No. 990 of 1997 against the judgment and order dated 24th June 1997 passed by the learned single Judge. Re : Interlocutory Application No. 2894 of 2014 2. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed above interlocutory application for permission to produce true copies of certain documents withdrawn from the records of the suit. 3. Appellants are allowed to produce copies of the relevant documents. Re : Interlocutory Application No. 8620 of 2013 4. Learned advocate Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma is present before us. He states that he represents Dr. Krishna Kumar Choudhary & Dr. Manoj Kumar Choudhary of village- Rajpur, the applicants in above Interlocutory Application No. 8620 of 2013. Mr. Verma has submitted that the applicants have purchased a piece of immovable property from the deceased respondent as early as in 1991 under a registered sale deed. The applicants are, therefore, the successors in interest of the deceased respondent Smt. Deoki Nandani Devi. 5. Mr. Verma has submitted that the above referred successors in interest have filed Interlocutory Application No. 8620 of 2013 to substitute the deceased respondent as her successors in interest/legal representatives. Mr. Verma has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Khemchand Shankar Choudhari & Anr. Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil and Others [AIR 1983 Supreme Court 124]; and of Vidur Impex And Trader Private Limited And Others Vs. The Apartments Private Limited And Others [(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 384] to buttress his submission that the applicants being transferee pendente lite have a right to step into the shoes of the deceased respondent as her successors in interest and to contest the Appeal. 6. The contention is contested by the learned advocate Mr. Ganpati Trivedi appearing for the appellants. He has relied upon Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has submitted that Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to join any person as a party, plaintiff or defendant, whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. He has submitted that in the present case the plaintiffs have sought declaration that the adoption of the plaintiff no. He has submitted that in the present case the plaintiffs have sought declaration that the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 by his adoptive father late Basudeo Narain Tiwari was legal and valid. No movable or immovable property is the subject matter of dispute before the Court. The applicants, therefore, cannot be said to be transferee pendent elite nor are they necessary or proper party nor do they have a right to join in the suit as legal representatives or successors in interest of the deceased Smt. Deoki Nandani Devi. The applicants do not have a right to address this Court on legality or otherwise of the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1. He has also relied upon Order XXII Rule 4A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has submitted that in a case like the present one where the sole defendant dies leaving no legal representative, the Court has discretion either to proceed without the legal representative to represent the estate of the deceased or to appoint a person as the Court thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased. In the present case the appellants being the only heirs of the deceased respondent, this Court has, as early as on 20th May 1998, made order to proceed without appointment of any person to represent the estate of the deceased respondent. 7. We do agree with Mr. Trivedi. The applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to this Appeal. The applicants cannot be said to be the transferee pendente lite or the successors in interest of the deceased respondent. The applicants are total strangers to the present litigation. They do not have a right to address this Court on legality or otherwise of the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari. Nevertheless, we have heard Mr. Verma. Re : Letters Patent Appeal No. 998 of 1997 8. The appellants-plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 33 of 1974 in the Court of 4th Additional Sub-Judge, Bhagalpur for declaration that the plaintiff no. 1 is the legally adopted son of the late Basudeo Narain Tiwari and his two wives, the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, late Basudeo Narain Tiwari although had two wives, neither of his wives had borne a child to the said Basudeo Narain Tiwari. 1 is the legally adopted son of the late Basudeo Narain Tiwari and his two wives, the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, late Basudeo Narain Tiwari although had two wives, neither of his wives had borne a child to the said Basudeo Narain Tiwari. The said Basudeo Narain Tiwari, after obtaining consent of both his wives, adopted the plaintiff no. 1, the son of his late sister by half blood Ahilya Devi and her husband Anant Prasad Tiwari. The adoption ceremony was performed on 30th June 1963 by a priest, Pandit Tarkeshwar Tiwari. The plaintiff no. 1, then known as Shiv Shankar Tiwari, was physically handed over to the late Basudeo Narain Tiwari by his natural father Anant Prasad Tiwari. Since his adoption by Basudeo Narain Tiwari, the plaintiff no. 1 is known as Mohan Murari Tiwari. He went and started residing with his adoptive parents, Basudeo Narain Tiwari and his two wives. His natural mother, Ahilya Devi had died before he was given in adoption in 1963. His adoptive father Basudeo Narain Tiwari died on 20th July 1971. Before his death, the deed of adoption was drawn on 26th June 1970 and was registered. After the death of the said Basudeo Narain Tiwari, obsequial ceremony was performed by the plaintiff no. 1 as his son. The plaintiff no.1 applied to the Bhagalpur Municipality for mutation of his name as the heir of the deceased Basudeo Narain Tiwari in the revenue records. 9. At this juncture, the defendant, the first wife of the Basudeo Narain Tiwari, raised dispute in respect of the validity the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the above referred Title Suit No. 33 of 1974 in the Civil Court at Bhagalpur. The suit was contested by the defendant-deceased respondent. According to the defendant, the plaintiff no. 1 was never taken in adoption by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari. The case of adoption made out by the plaintiffs was a make believe. No adoption ceremony had ever taken place. The late Basudeo Narain Tiwari had neither asked for her consent nor did she give her consent to the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1. In last years of his life late Basudeo Narain Tiwari was unwell. He was not in a position to draw the deed of adoption or to get it registered. The late Basudeo Narain Tiwari had neither asked for her consent nor did she give her consent to the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1. In last years of his life late Basudeo Narain Tiwari was unwell. He was not in a position to draw the deed of adoption or to get it registered. Entire case of adoption was made out by Anant Prasad Tiwari, the natural father of the plaintiff no. 1. He being a tacher, he had concocted the deed of adoption. The claim was sham and bogus. 10. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhagalpur, under his judgment and decree dated 19th September 1977, allowed the suit and passed decree in favour of the plaintiffs. He passed the decree declaring that the plaintiff no. 1 Mohan Murari Tiwari was legally adopted by the late Basudeo Narain Tiwari with the consent of both his wives and that the adoption was a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred the above First Appeal No. 990 of 1977 before this court. 12. The learned single Judge, under his judgment and order dated 24th June 1997, allowed the Appeal. The learned Single Judge has not upset the finding of legal adoption by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari and the consent by his wives, the plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant. The learned single Judge has, however, held that the late Basudeo Narain Tiwari could not have adopted the plaintiff no. 1, the son of his half sister. Such an adoption was not valid and legal. Reliance is placed on a judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ado Rai Vs. Huro Rai and Others [AIR 1958 Patna 233]. 13. Felling aggrieved, the respondents-plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal. Pending this Appeal, the sole respondent Smt. Deoki Nandani Devi has passed away on 13th February 1998 leaving behind the appellants-plaintiffs as her only heirs. The appellants had filed Interlocutory Application No. 5158 of 1998 declaring that the appellants were the only heirs of the deceased Deoki Nandani Devi. This Court has, on 20th May 1998, made order that “there is no need to substitute legal representatives”. It further transpires that pending the first appeal, the respondent Deoki Nandani Devi transferred some of the properties to the above referred Dr. Krishna Kumar Choudhary & Dr. Manoj Kumar Choudhary. 14. This Court has, on 20th May 1998, made order that “there is no need to substitute legal representatives”. It further transpires that pending the first appeal, the respondent Deoki Nandani Devi transferred some of the properties to the above referred Dr. Krishna Kumar Choudhary & Dr. Manoj Kumar Choudhary. 14. Learned Advocate Mr. Ganpati Trivedi has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the Learned single Judge has manifestly erred in relying upon the judgment in the matter of Ado Rai (supra) to hold that late Basudeo Narain Tiwari could not have legally adopted the plaintiff no. 1, the son of his half sister. Mr. Trivedi has submitted that the adoption in question had taken place on 30th April 1963. It was, therefore, governed by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 4 of the said Act has an overriding effect over any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage. Section 5 of the said Act expressly provides that all adoptions made after the commencement of the said Act shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Chapter. He has further submitted that the Act of 1956 does not prohibit adoption amongst relation by blood. The adoption of plaintiff no. 1, therefore, could not have been invalidated on the sole ground that he was the son of the half sister of his adoptive father. 15. In connection with the scope and ambit of Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the first appeal, learned advocates have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baddula Lakshmaiah Vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple [1996(2) PLJR (S.C.) 27] and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ramsarup Singh Vs. Muneshwar Singh & Others [AIR 1964 Patna 76]. 16. Learned Advocate Mr. Verma has contested the Appeal. He has vehemently submitted that the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 was illegal inasmuch as the consent of the defendant was not asked for and that she had not given her consent for such adoption. He has submitted that the Civil Court has erred in holding that the adoption was legal and valid. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ghisalal Vs. Dhapubai & Ors. [2011 (2) Supreme Court Cases 298]; and of Brajendra Singh Vs. He has submitted that the Civil Court has erred in holding that the adoption was legal and valid. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ghisalal Vs. Dhapubai & Ors. [2011 (2) Supreme Court Cases 298]; and of Brajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Another [(2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 161]. 17. Mr. Verma has strenuously urged that even though the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari was not prohibited, the said adoption was not legal and valid inasmuch as the consent of one of the wives, the defendant, was not obtained by the late Basudeo Narain Tiwari. 18. We have no hesitation in holding that for a valid adoption by a male Hindu consent of the wife is necessary. If the male Hindu has two wives, both the wives must consent to the adoption. However, in the present Appeal this question does not arise. The Civil Court has specifically dealt with the issue and has recorded a categorical finding that the defendant had indeed given her consent to the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari. The said finding has not been disturbed or upset by the learned single Judge under the judgment under challenge nor did the respondent-plaintiff raise challenge in a substantive appeal or by filing cross objections in the present Appeal. We will not entertain the challenge to the legality of adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 by his adoptive father late Basudeo Narain Tiwari at the instance of the alleged successors in interest of the deceased respondent. 19. In the matter of Ado Rai (supra) this Court relied upon the Dattak Chandrika & Dattak Mimansa to invalidate the adoption of the appellant, Ado Rai by one Babulal. The principle applied was that of permissibility of the marriage between the adoptive father and the natural mother of the adopted son in her maiden state. In other words, if the adoptive father could not have legally married the natural mother of the adopted son, the adoption of such son is prohibited. 20. In our opinion, the reliance placed in the matter of Ado Rai (supra) was uncalled for. On the date the plaintiff no. In other words, if the adoptive father could not have legally married the natural mother of the adopted son, the adoption of such son is prohibited. 20. In our opinion, the reliance placed in the matter of Ado Rai (supra) was uncalled for. On the date the plaintiff no. 1 was adopted by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari the adoptions were governed by the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act has been enacted with a view to amending and codifying the law relating to adoptions and maintenance prevalent amongst Hindus. Under section 2 of the Act, the Act has been made applicable to Hindus and also to Budhists, Jains & Sikhs by religion. Section 5 under Chapter II of the Act provides that all adoptions be regulated by the said Chapter. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that no adoption shall be made after the commencement of the Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Chapter. Thus, since 1956 it is the Act which shall regulate the adoptions by the Hindus and not any custom or usage prevalent prior thereto. Sections 7 & 8 of the Act provide for the male and female Hindu who can take in adoption. Section 9 of the Act provides for a person who can give in adoption. Section 10 of the Act provides for the persons who may be adopted. According to the said section a person, who is a Hindu (male or female), not already adopted, who is not married, and who has not completed fifteen years of age, can be given in adoption. Section 11 of the Act enumerates the conditions for a valid adoption. Section 15 of the Act prohibits cancellation of valid adoption. Section 16 of the Act provides for presumption of a valid adoption if the adoption is recorded in writing and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption. Thus, since 1956, there is no express or implied prohibition against adoption of a person whose mother the adoptive father could not have legally married. The said practice prevalent in India prior to the codification of law is not recognized by the Act. In absence of such or any other prohibition imposed by the Act, the adoption of the plaintiff no. The said practice prevalent in India prior to the codification of law is not recognized by the Act. In absence of such or any other prohibition imposed by the Act, the adoption of the plaintiff no. 1 by late Basudeo Narain Tiwari could not have been invalidated. Further, in view of the registered deed of adoption produced on the record of the suit, there shall be a presumption of valid adoption. 21. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in applying the test which is not legally permissible now after the Act of 1956. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24th June 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 990 of 1977 is set aside. The First Appeal No. 990 of 1977 is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 19th September 1977 passed by the 4th Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 33 of 1974 is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. ?