Judgment: Rohit Arya, J. 1. This appeal by plaintiff in Civil No. 144-A/1994 is against the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2005 in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2000 confirming the judgment and decree dated 8/4/2000 in Civil Suit Nos. 144-A/1994 and 137-A/1994. 2. Plaintiff/appellant Salikram had filed a civil suit No. 144-A/1994 for declaration, specific performance and permanent injunction against Bhuribai and Dharmdas. Undisputed facts between the parties are to the effect that the disputed property admeasuring 13 beegha 9 biswa in survey No. 685 and two houses (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') situated in village Manpura, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri were of the exclusive ownership and in possession of Late Baijnath. Baijnath had a wife, namely, Bhuribai and lone child, a daughter, namely, Hanshmukhi. Hanshmukhi was married to appellant-Salikram in 1967, however, she died just after a year of marriage. Baijnath had died in 1980. After death of Baijnath, name of Bhuribai was recorded in revenue documents. By a registered sale deed dated 2/2/1983 the suit property has been transferred to Dharmdas. During pendency of suit, Bhuribai and Dharmdas also died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. Further, the suit property is in possession of plaintiff-Salikram. Plaintiff-Salikram filed a suit inter alia contending that after his marriage with Hanshmukhi, Baijnath had kept him in his own house and thereafter as per rituals of the community, he was taken on adoption by Baijnath. By an oral Will Baijnath had bequeathed the entire suit property to Salikram, hence, after the death of Baijnath, Salikram became the exclusive owner of the suit property and since then he is in possession thereof. It is further averred that Bhuribai has signed an agreement on 29/1/1983 with the stipulation that she will execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Salikram. Thereafter, Bhuribai surprisingly executed a sale deed dated 2/2/1983 in respect of the suit property in favour of Dharmdas. It is alleged that in fact Bhuribai was not in sound state of mind and Dharmdas had manipulated her and procured the aforesaid sale deed. Hence, the suit for declaration and in the alternative for execution of sale deed as per the agreement and for permanent injunction has been filed against Bhuribai and Dharmdas. 3. Bhuribai and Dharmdas filed joint written statement denying plaint allegations. Hence, the suit for declaration and in the alternative for execution of sale deed as per the agreement and for permanent injunction has been filed against Bhuribai and Dharmdas. 3. Bhuribai and Dharmdas filed joint written statement denying plaint allegations. It is denied that Salikram was adopted by Baijnath or that Salikram is the adopted son of Baijnath. Since suit property was the self acquired property of Baijnath, therefore, the same was succeeded by Bhuribai and she is in possession thereof. They married their daughter-Hanshmukhi with Salikram in 1967, but she died just after one year therefrom. Salikram was never kept by them in the house as Gharjamai. No Will was propounded by Late Baijnath in favour of Salikram. It was also denied that agreement dated 29/1/1983 was entered into with Salikram. It is further submitted that Bhuribai in her full consciousness after receipt of consideration amount had executed the sale deed dated 2/2/1983 in favour of Dharmdas. Since then the suit property is of the ownership and in possession of Dharmdas, however, on 8/11/1985 since plaintiff had illegally dispossessed Dharmdas and had taken forcible possession of the suit property, therefore, defendant-Dharmdas has filed a separate suit vide civil suit No. 137-A/1994 for recovery of possession. 4. Both civil suits viz. 144-A/1994 and 137-A/1994 were clubbed, issues were framed on aforesaid pleadings, parties were allowed to lead evidence and after analogous hearing of both suits, judgment and decree dated 8/4/2000 was passed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Salikram i.e. civil suit No. 144-A/1994 and decreed the suit filed by Dharmdas i.e. civil suit No. 137-A/1994. Trial Court has found that Salikram has failed to establish that he was adopted by Baijnath or any Will was executed by Baijnath in favour of Salikram. The alleged agreement dated 29/1/1983 has also not been found proved as claimed by Salikram. Accordingly, his suit (Civil Suit No. 144-A/1994) was dismissed. The Trial Court found that the suit property by registered sale deed dated 2/2/1983 has been transferred in favour of Dharmdas by Bhuribai. Accordingly, decreed the suit filed by Dharmdas (Civil Suit No. 137-A/1994) with direction that the defendant therein (Salikram) shall deliver possession of the suit property in the hands of plaintiff-Dharmdas. 5. The Trial Court found that the suit property by registered sale deed dated 2/2/1983 has been transferred in favour of Dharmdas by Bhuribai. Accordingly, decreed the suit filed by Dharmdas (Civil Suit No. 137-A/1994) with direction that the defendant therein (Salikram) shall deliver possession of the suit property in the hands of plaintiff-Dharmdas. 5. In appeal, Salikram raised threefold submissions before the first appellate court; first, that by virtue of oral Will he has acquired exclusive right and ownership over the suit property; second, that by virtue of being an adopted son he is entitled to succeed the suit property left behind by Baijnath; and third, that after the death of Baijnath as his widow had signed a sale agreement, therefore, he is entitled for execution of sale deed by her in respect of suit property in his favour. The first appellate court has dealt with the aforesaid submissions in detail from para 10 onwards. The Courts below have found that there is no evidence on record in support of the alleged claim of oral Will. Even otherwise, the claim of Salikram on the strength of oral Will does not have any legal sanction under the Indian Succession Act. As regards second contention related to adoption, the first appellate court has dealt with the issue with reference to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, particularly Sections 5 to 17. It has been held that Section 10 thereof deals with the person who may be adopted and that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoption if he or she has completed the age of 15 years unless there was custom or usage applicable to the parties, which permits the person who has completed the age of 15 years, to go in adoption. In the context of aforesaid provisions, evidence on record has been examined. Salikram has stated that he was married with Hanshmukhi in 1967 and at the time of marriage her age was 21-22 years. He claims to have been adopted by Baijnath in 1968. As per evidence of school record, in cross-examination, he stated that his date of birth is 7/1/1944. Therefore, it is evident that in 1968 the appellant-Salikram's age was more than 15 years and, hence, he was not eligible to be adopted by Baijnath. He claims to have been adopted by Baijnath in 1968. As per evidence of school record, in cross-examination, he stated that his date of birth is 7/1/1944. Therefore, it is evident that in 1968 the appellant-Salikram's age was more than 15 years and, hence, he was not eligible to be adopted by Baijnath. No document has been brought on record to assert the claim of adoption based on community traditions or rituals. That apart, Bhuribai in her written statement has denied that Salikram was taken on adoption by Baijnath and, therefore, in the light of Section 7 of the Act, even otherwise, the alleged claim of adoption cannot be sustained, wherein it is provided that if the wife is alive, a male Hindu shall not adopt except with her consent. Credibility of depositions of Salikram as regards claim of adoption has also been negated on the premise that though he memorized his date of marriage as 28/5/1967 and the date of death of his wife as 29/9/1968, but does not know the date of his adoption, which is claimed somewhere in the month of August. This itself shows that the plaintiff has made a story of alleged adoption to justify his vain attempt to claim the suit property. Accordingly, in para 18 of its judgment the first appellate court has rejected the claim of adoption as made by plaintiff-Salikram. The first appellate court has also considered the document on that behalf and found that if the claim as regards adoption was correct, then in Khasra Panchshala (Ex. P/1) name of plaintiff's father Durgaprasad would not have been mentioned and likewise in the identity card issued by the Gram Panchayat (Ex. P/4). Even after death of Baijnath in the records in relation to plaintiff in the Revenue Department and other records, his father's name has not been changed. Revenue records continued to show name of father of plaintiff as Durgaprasad and plaintiff-Salikram never applied for change of name of his father. As a matter of fact, in absence of any evidence on record the first appellate court has concluded that the claim of adoption and claim of Will allegedly propounded by Baijnath in his favour was rightly rejected by the trial court. The last submission is with regard to claim of execution of sale deed in respect of suit property on the basis of alleged agreement dated 29/1/1983. The last submission is with regard to claim of execution of sale deed in respect of suit property on the basis of alleged agreement dated 29/1/1983. The first appellate court has considered the submission from paragraph 21 onwards. The appellant submits that Bhuribai had filed second written statement on 17/1/1984, wherein she had admitted to have signed the agreement dated 29/1/1983. The first appellate court in para 23 of the impugned judgment has inspected the entire order-sheets of the trial court and found that the defendants have filed written statement on 16/8/1983, copy whereof was given to the plaintiff also. Issues were framed thereupon and parties were allowed to lead evidence. Plaintiff all along participated in the proceeding of suit as and when it was fixed for evidence, however, at no point of time plaintiff raised any objection as regards written statement filed on 16/8/1983. Even on 4/2/1984 evidence was led and no objection was raised by the plaintiff and the plaintiff never raised any objection in the context of alleged written statement dated 17/1/1984. Further, it is found that there is no order-sheet written by the trial court for taking the alleged written statement dated 17/1/1984 on record. Case was never fixed on 17/1/1984 for filing written statement. The alleged written statement is not signed by any advocate. Bhuribai in her statement has denied to have filed written statement on 17/1/1984. Even otherwise in the light of submissions made in the written statement on 16/8/1983, defendants cannot be permitted to rescind from the admissions made subsequently in the written statement dated 17/1/1984. Furthermore, admittedly the sale deed has been executed by Bhuribai in favour of Dharmdas on 2/2/1983. As such, after execution of sale deed in respect of suit property, any averment contrary thereto cannot be made. Admittedly, the written statement filed on 16/8/1983 was taken on record on 16/8/1983, wherein amendments have been made on 10/3/1988, 10/3/1989 and 6/1/1990. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim of plaintiff that Bhuribai had filed subsequent written statement on 17/1/1984 has been rightly rejected by the first appellate court. Admittedly, the written statement filed on 16/8/1983 was taken on record on 16/8/1983, wherein amendments have been made on 10/3/1988, 10/3/1989 and 6/1/1990. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim of plaintiff that Bhuribai had filed subsequent written statement on 17/1/1984 has been rightly rejected by the first appellate court. The first appellate court has also examined the evidence of handwriting expert, who had deposed as regards the thumb impression of Bhuribai over the alleged written statement dated 17/1/1984 in para 27 and 28 and found that the statement of expert itself is conflicting in nature and is based on uncertain standards for examination of thumb impression of Bhuribai. That apart, thumb impression of Bhuribai was not compared with one on any other document. As such, expert's report has been rejected. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the alleged claim of agreement has also been rejected by the first appellate court. The first appellate court has also considered the evidence led in the context of civil suit No. 137-A/1994 and has found that Bhuribai was the exclusive owner of the suit property left behind by Baijnath after his death. She was fully competent to execute the sale deed dated 2/2/1983 in favour of Dharmdas. Dharmdas was put into possession over the suit property, however, he was forcibly dispossessed on 18/11/1985 and thereafter suit has been filed on 28/2/1986. Suit is found well within time and no right has accrued upon the defendant-Salikram to claim title over the suit property by virtue of forcible illegal possession. With the aforesaid findings, the first appellate court confirmed the findings of trial court decreeing the civil suit No. 137-A/1994. Accordingly, the first appellate court has dismissed the civil suit No. 144-A/1994 filed by Salikram and decreed the suit for possession filed by Dharmdas vide civil suit No. 137-A/1994. 6. Having gone through the impugned judgments of the courts below and evidence of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that both the courts below have justified the recorded findings of facts based on correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. 6. Having gone through the impugned judgments of the courts below and evidence of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that both the courts below have justified the recorded findings of facts based on correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. The claim of plaintiff-Salikram, based on three prepositions, namely, first, that by virtue of oral Will he has acquired exclusive right and ownership over the suit property; second, that by virtue of being an adopted son, he is entitled to succeed the suit property left behind by Baijnath; and third, that after the death of Baijnath as his widow had signed a sale agreement, therefore, he is entitled for execution of sale deed by her in respect of suit property in his favour, in civil suit No. 144-A/1994 has rightly been rejected by the courts below. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference under Section 100 of CPC. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has relied upon the judgments in Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through LRs. v. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs. AIR 2000 SC 426 , Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. 2000 (1) JLJ 186 , Gian Chand and Brothers and another Vs. Rattan Lal alias Rattan Singh, (2013) 2 SCC 606 and Chironjilal and others v. Khatoon Bi and others, AIR 1995 MP 238 , however factual matrix in the case in hand is altogether distinguishable. Accordingly, the Second Appeal sans merits is hereby dismissed.