JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on 30th March, 2012 by the 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 2097 of 2007 at the instance of the defendant/respondent no. 3. 2. In connection with this appeal, the appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in this appeal. 3. We will deal with the said application while considering the merit of this appeal. 4. Let us now consider the merit of this appeal in the facts of the instant case. 5. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to Gokul Chand Goswami & Atul Krishna Goswami who were the shebaits of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and other deities located at 41, Mahendra Goswami Lane. It is also an admitted position that Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) became the ultimate trustee from the branch of Gokul Chand Goswami. It is also an admitted position that Chhabi Goswami and Madhabi Mukherjee were the last shebaits from the branch of Atul Krishna Goswami. It is also an admitted position that after the death of Tara Sundari Devi, Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) started acting as shebait from the branch of Gokul Chand Goswami as the adopted son of Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) along with the two other admitted shebaits, viz., Chhabi Goswami and Madhabi Mukherjee who started realising rent jointly from the tenants of the debottar estate. 6. Problem started when Chhabi Goswami took steps for repairing the debottar property. Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) obstructed Chhabi Goswami from effecting repair of the debottar property. It is only thereafter, the instant suit was filed by Chhabi Goswami challenging the validity of the adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami). It is alleged by her that Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was not validly adopted by Tara Sundari Debi. As such, he cannot act as a shebait of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew & other family deities. Chhabi Goswami claimed that upon the death of the other co-trustee viz., Madhabi Mukherjee, she became the absolute trustee of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and other family deities. She thus prayed for injunction against the defendants for restraining the defendants from acting as shebaits. Chhabi Goswami claimed that upon the death of the other co-trustee viz., Madhabi Mukherjee, she became the absolute trustee of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and other family deities. She thus prayed for injunction against the defendants for restraining the defendants from acting as shebaits. Incidentally it may be mentioned herein that Madhabi Mukherjee, the other co-trustee, was also joined as defendant in the said suit. She was issue less. She died during the pendency of the suit. 7. The defendant no. 3/appellant herein contested the said suit by filing written statement claiming that he was legally and validly adopted by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) and as such, on her death he became one of the trustees of the said debottar estate. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. Several issues were framed in the said suit. Parties led their respective evidence in support of their respective claims. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on contest against the defendants but without costs. The plaintiff was declared as absolute owner of the suit property. It was declared that the defendants have no right to interfere with the management of the debottar estate of Sree Sree Radha Kanta Jew and others wherein the plaintiff is the only shebait. It was also declared that the defendants have no right to act as shebait. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the affairs of the debottar estate and from disturbing the plaintiff in the administration of the affairs of the debottar estate. 9. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 10. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in allowing the said suit in the facts of the instant case. 11. As a matter of fact, though several issues were raised and/or decided by the learned Trial Judge, but we were addressed on only two issues i.e. the issue Nos. 3 and 4 which relate to the validity of the adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) as her son. Those issues are as follows:- (i) Is the defendant a adopted son of Tara Sundari Devi? (ii) Is the Deed of Adoption, dated 30.9.95, executed by Tara Sundari Devi, illegal and void ? 12. 3 and 4 which relate to the validity of the adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) as her son. Those issues are as follows:- (i) Is the defendant a adopted son of Tara Sundari Devi? (ii) Is the Deed of Adoption, dated 30.9.95, executed by Tara Sundari Devi, illegal and void ? 12. Such issues were raised as the parties were at issue as to the age of Amal Kumar Chakraborty at the time of his adoption. According to the plaintiff, Amal was aged about 24 years at the time of his adoption and as such, his adoption was invalid being opposed to Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. On the contrary, Amalbabu claims that at the time of his adoption, he was 5 years old. As such, he claimed that his adoption is valid. Thus, we concentrate on those two issues in this appeal. As a matter of fact that those are issues which are the determining factor regarding the merit of this appeal. 13. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have perused the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by them. 14. Here is the case where we find that adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty was made by a registered deed of adoption. The said deed of adoption was registered on 30th September, 1995. Since the said deed of adoption is very vital and crucial document, we have perused the said registered deed very carefully. We have seen that by the said deed, Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was given in adoption by his biological mother Debi Chakraborty to Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) with effect from the date of registration of the said deed. Tara Sundari Devi also accepted such adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) as her son with effect from the date of registration of the said deed. Language used in the said deed of adoption all through out gives a clear and distinct indication that it was a present demise. 15. The defendant however tried to contradict the contents of the said deed regarding the date of adoption of Amalbabu by Tara Sundari Devi by adducing evidence through two witnesses viz., Goutam Mukherjee and Amar Nath Ganguly as D.W.-2 and D.W.-3. Both of them were relatives of Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami). 15. The defendant however tried to contradict the contents of the said deed regarding the date of adoption of Amalbabu by Tara Sundari Devi by adducing evidence through two witnesses viz., Goutam Mukherjee and Amar Nath Ganguly as D.W.-2 and D.W.-3. Both of them were relatives of Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami). They stated in their evidence that Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was given in adoption to Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) at a point of time when Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was aged about 5 years only. They further stated in their evidences that the deed of adoption was subsequently registered for confirming the adoption which had taken place at a point of time when Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was aged about 5 years only. 16. Let us consider as to how far such evidence of those witnesses of the said defendant can be believed in the light of the documentary evidence produced by the parties in the suit. 17. Two documents were also admitted into evidence at the instance of the said defendant/appellant. One of such documents was the Voter Identity Card of the said defendant no.3 viz., Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) and the other document was his Ration Card. 18. On perusal of those two documents, we find that the Voter's Identity Card of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) being Exhibit-A was issued on 23rd May, 2005 during the pendency of the suit. In the said Voter Identity Card, Amal Kumar Goswami was described as the son of Gopinath Goswami. It is recorded therein that at the time of issuance of the said Voter Identity Card, he was aged about 34 years. The said document, in our view, is not a document from which the age of the said Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) at the time when he was given in adoption in favour of Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) can be ascertained. As such, we hold that the said document cannot help us to decide the issue. 19. Let us now consider the other document being Exhibit-B i.e. the Ration Card of Amal Kumar Chakraborty which shows that the said Ration Card was issued on 19th July, 1991. In the said document, he was described as the son of Late P. Chakraborty. Thus, even in 1991, Amal Kumar Chakraborty was described as the son of P. Chakraborty. 19. Let us now consider the other document being Exhibit-B i.e. the Ration Card of Amal Kumar Chakraborty which shows that the said Ration Card was issued on 19th July, 1991. In the said document, he was described as the son of Late P. Chakraborty. Thus, even in 1991, Amal Kumar Chakraborty was described as the son of P. Chakraborty. It is mentioned therein that at the time of issuance of the said Ration Card, he was aged about 18 years. As such, we have no hesitation to hold that from the said document, it cannot be held that at the time of his adoption, he was 5 years old as even at the age of 18 years, he was described as the son of his biological father viz., P. Chakraborty. 20. He was born on 25th December, 1971. The deed of adoption was executed and registered on 30th September, 1995. In the deed, it was mentioned that at the time of execution of the said deed, Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was aged about 24 years. 21. Apart from those two documents being Exhibit-A i.e. Voter Identity Card and Exhibit-B i.e. Ration Card, the defendant produced various other documents including the fees book of his school where he studied at the primary level, in the suit. Some of such documents were admitted into evidence and some were not as no step was taken by the defendant to prove those documents. Those are the documents which the appellant is now seeking to introduce in this appeal by way of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 22. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant laid much stress upon one of such documents i.e. the Invitation Card which was issued by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) on the occasion of Thread ceremony of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) for inviting her guests and relatives. Thread ceremony of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was held on 4th June, 1998. Invitation Cards were issued in June 1998. 23. We have already indicated above that the deed of adoption was executed and registered on 30th September, 1995 i.e. three years before the Thread ceremony of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was performed. The said Invitation Card does not reflect as to the date when Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was taken in adoption by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) as her son. We have already indicated above that the deed of adoption was executed and registered on 30th September, 1995 i.e. three years before the Thread ceremony of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was performed. The said Invitation Card does not reflect as to the date when Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was taken in adoption by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) as her son. As such, we do not find that the said document in anyway will help us to decide the dispute as to whether Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was aged about 5 years at the time when he was taken in adoption by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) or not. 24. We have also examined the other documents which were sought to be produced by the appellant by way of additional evidence in this appeal. None of those documents, in our considered view, is relevant for deciding the dispute involved in this appeal. As such, we do not find any necessity for granting permission to the appellant for adducing further evidence for bringing those documents on record. 25. The appellant's application for adducing additional evidence thus stands rejected. 26. On consideration of the totality of the circumstances as stated above, we find that the defendant has miserably failed to establish that at the time when he was taken in adoption by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami), he was aged about 5 years and the deed of adoption was registered on 30th September, 1995 only by way of ratification of his adoption which had already taken place at a point of time when he was 5 years old as claimed by the said defendant. 27. We have already indicated above that we have read in between the lines of the deed of adoption very carefully and find that the language which is used in the said document clearly indicates that adoption was a present demise as it was mentioned in the said document very clearly and distinctly that adoption was given by the biological mother of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) to Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) by the said deed itself with effect from the date of execution and registration of the said deed. Even Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) also confirmed in the said deed that she accepted such adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) as her son from the date of execution and registration of the said deed. 28. Even Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) also confirmed in the said deed that she accepted such adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) as her son from the date of execution and registration of the said deed. 28. It is well settled that the documentary evidence cannot be contradicted by oral evidence. As such, the oral evidence which was given by the defendant for contradicting the contents of the said deed with regard to the date of adoption of Amal, cannot nullify the effect of the admission made in the deed itself. At the cost of repetition, we say that the deed of adoption clearly and distinctly indicates that it was a present demise and at the time when the said deed of adoption was executed and registered, Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) aged about 24 years. 29. We thus, hold that at the time when Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was taken in adoption by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami), Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was 24 years old. 30. Having regard to the provision contained in Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, we hold that such adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) was invalid as at the time of his adoption, he completed the age of 15 years and there is no custom or usage which permits adoption of a son who has completed the age of 15 years at the time of adoption. Since such adoption was made in violation of the provision of Section 10 of the said Act, adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty was invalid. 31. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel contends that when the plaintiff allowed the said Amalbabu to collect rent from the tenants of the debottar property as trustee along with the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot challenge that Amalbabu's position as trustee. 32. We find no substance in such contention of Mr. Chatterjee as it is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute. 33. Under such circumstances, we find no reason to defer from the findings of the Learned Court below that the adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) by Tara Sundari Devi (Goswami) was invalid. Since adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) is invalid, he cannot act as a trustee of the said deity viz. Sree Sree Radhakanta Jew and others family deities. 34. Since adoption of Amal Kumar Chakraborty (Goswami) is invalid, he cannot act as a trustee of the said deity viz. Sree Sree Radhakanta Jew and others family deities. 34. We also find that on the death of Madhabi Mukherjee, Chhabi Goswami became the absolute trustee as by virtue of the last will of Atul Krishna Goswami, the entire estate devolved upon her as the wife of the daughter's son's wife of Atul Krishna Goswami. 35. We thus, maintain the impugned judgement and decree by declaring that the plaintiff Chhabi Goswami is the absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant/appellant has no right to interfere with the management and maintenance of the debottar estate of Sree Sree Radhakanta Jew & Ors. We further declare that the defendant/appellant has no right to act as a shebait. As such, the defendant/appellant is permanently restrained from interfering with the affairs of the debottar estate which will be solely managed by the plaintiff Chhabi Goswami. 36. The appeal is thus, dismissed without cost. 37. The concerned department is directed to send down the lower court records to the court below immediately after the decree is drawn up. Appeal dismissed.