JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal filed by the plaintiff is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal (Decree) No.16/2003 “Smt. Amani Vs. Madan Lal” who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff-Smt. Amani and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Osian in Civil Original Suit No. 22/1997 “Smt. Amani Vs. Madan Lal” by which, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Smt. Amani seeking cancellation of adoption deed registered on 18.05.1990 executed by the plaintiff Smt. Amani in favour of the defendant-Madan Lal. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, against concurrent rejection of her claim in relation to cancellation of the adoption deed dated 18.05.1990 executed by herself in favour of the defendant-Madan Lal, who is originally son of Bhagwana Ram, who was younger brother of Ram Dayal, the husband of the plaintiff-Smt. Amani. 3. The appellant-plaintiff-Smt. Amani has expired during the pendency of the present second appeal on 15.03.2014 and she was substituted as appellants in her place by the purchasers of the agricultural land in question from her namely, Khinya Ram S/o Rewat Ram Mali, Chuni Lal S/o Sukha Ram Mali and Ghasi Ram S/o Rewat Ram Mali. 4. Smt. Amani had challenged by filing the Civil Suit No.22/1997 “Mst. Amani Wd/o Ram Dayal Mali Vs. Madan Lal”, the adoption deed dated 18.05.1990 which was duly registered and under which, the plaintiff-Mst. Amani widow of Ram Dayal Mali is said to have adopted the defendant-Madan Lal S/o Bhagwana Ram Mali, who was the son of the plaintiff husband's younger brother Bhagwana Ram, since the plaintiff-Mst. Amani was issueless. After the sale of the agricultural lands in question in favour of the present appellants namely, Khinya Ram S/o Rewat Ram Mali, Chuni Lal S/o Sukha Ram Mali and Ghasi Ram S/o Rewat Ram Mali in the year 1994-95, the present suit for cancellation of adoption deed was filed by the plaintiff-Mst. Amani was issueless. After the sale of the agricultural lands in question in favour of the present appellants namely, Khinya Ram S/o Rewat Ram Mali, Chuni Lal S/o Sukha Ram Mali and Ghasi Ram S/o Rewat Ram Mali in the year 1994-95, the present suit for cancellation of adoption deed was filed by the plaintiff-Mst. Amani which was, however, dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 17.01.2003 with the following findings on issue No.1 framed by it:- ^^8- mHk;i{kksa ds fojks/kkHkklh rdksZ ds i’pkr~ esjh fouez jk; esa oknhuh us vius nkos o c;kuksa esa tkfgj fd;k fd mlus viuh tehu csph gSa ftlds fo:} izfroknh us vyx vyx txgksa ij nkosa o vihysa dj j[kh gSA oknhuh us vius c;kuksa esa dgk fd og xksnukek [kkfjt djokuk pkgrh gS D;ksafd mlus tehu jkth[kq’kh csp nh gS vkSj vc og bl xksnukes dks fujLr djokuk pkgrh gS o bl ckr dks lgh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vksfl;k¡ esa fy[kki<+h djokbZ FkhA rglhynkj us xksnukes ds nLrkost dk vadu izLrqrdrkZ Jh eqLekr vekuh csok jken;ky ekyh fuoklh chatokfM;k }kjk enuyky iq= Hkxokukjke tkfr ekyh fuoklh chatokfM;k ds gd esa xksnukek nLrkost is’k fd;k vkSj ;g ckr esjs dks lquokbZ vkSj vaxqBk djok;k FkkA vkSj ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd tehu csph mlds igys dksbZ yM+kbZ ugha FkkA oknhuh ds xokgku ihMCyq&2 ukjk;.kyky] ihMCyq&3 ckcwjke] ihMCyq&4 enuyky o ihMCyq&5 pqUuhyky flQZ ;gka tkfgj djrs gSa fd muds lkeus xksnukes dh jLe ugha gqbZ FkhA xokg ckcwjke ihMCyq&3 us ftjg esa dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd vekuh us igys xksn dh jftLVªh djokbZ mls [kkfjt djus gsrq ;g nkok fd;kA izfroknh ds xokg fd’kunr ,MoksdsV us vekuh }kjk LosPNk ls nLrkost fy[kkuk o jftLVªh djokuk o lkjh dk;ZokbZ fof/kor djokuk crk;k gSA 9- mijksDr leLr foospu ds vk/kkj ij esjh fouez jk; esa oknhuh us izfroknh enuyky dks xksn fy;k Fkk o LosPNk ls xksnukek jftLVMZ djok;k Fkk ckn esa tc oknhuh us viuh tehu csph rks mlds xksniq= enuyky us ,rjkt fd;k o okn o vihysa is’k dh ftlls {kqC/k gksdj oknhuh us ;g okn xksnuke fujLr djus ds fy;s is’k fd;kA vr% ;g rudh oknhuh ds fo:} fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA vkns’k 13- vr% oknhuh dk okn fo:} izfroknh ckcr fujLr djus xksnuke vLohdkj dj lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA fu;ekuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ eqfrZc fd;k tkosA ,lMh@& ¼vtht [kku esgj½ flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼d&[k-½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV] vksfl;k¡** 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff – Mst. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff – Mst. Amani filed the first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur namely, Civil Appeal (Decree) No.16/2003 also came to be dismissed on 21.10.2005, while upholding the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court in the following manner:- ^^rudh la[;k ,d%& rudh la[;k ,d ds fu/kkZj.k esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us xokgku dh ekSf[kd lk{; dk foospu fd;k gSA ih-³1 vekuh us eq[; ijh{kk esa xksnuke /kks[ks ls djokuk crk;k o U;kr esa xksn dh jLe ugha gksuk crk;kA izfrijh{kk esa rglhynkj us xksn jkt[kq’kh fy[kokus dh ckr iwNh gks rks ;kn ugha gksuk] xksnuke ds le; eaxyk o rqylkjke dk lkFk gksus dh ckr lgh gksuk] lc jftLVªkj ds ;gka xksnuke dk nLrkost is’k fd;k rc xksnuke dh ckr lqudj vaxwBk djokus dh ckr ih-³1 Lohdkj djrh gSA tehu csph mlds igys dksbZ yM+kbZ >xM+k ugha gksuk rFkk Hkxokukjke o enuyky dk jkth[kq’kh jguk ih-³-1 crkrh gSA vr% ;g fLFkfr Li”V gksrh gS fd enuyky okfn;k ds ikl [ksrh dh tehu Fkh rc gh mldk nrd iq= cuk FkkA oknh;k us ml tehu dk lu~ 1994 esa cSp;ku fd;k o nrd iq= ds ukrs izfroknh us jktLo U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh dj nh rc oknhuh us xksnuke fujLrhdj.k dk okn is’k fd;k gSA oknh;k dks fof/k vuqlkj iathc} xksnuke i<dj lquk;k x;k o xksnuke oknh;k us jkth[kq’kh fu”ikfnr fd;k ;g fLFkfr ih-³1 ds dFkuksa ls iq”V gksrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh rudh la[;k 1 ds foospu esa oknh;k ds dFkuksa ij cy nsrs gq, ;g ekuk gS fd xksnuke okfn;k us jkth[kq’kh fu”ikfnr djok;k bl izdkj.k esa xksn dh oS/kkfudrk dks dksbZ pqukSrh oknh i{k us ugha nh gS dsoy xksnuke /kks[ks ls fu”ikfnr djok;k x;k lgh fookn mRiUu Fkk vr% xokgku dh ekSf[kd lk{; xksnukek dh jLe gqbZ ;k ugha bl ckcr oknh o izfroknh ds xokg fojks/kkHkklh ekSf[kd dFku nsrs gS tks ekSf[kd lk{; jftLVMZ xksnuke dh rqyuk esa fdlh egRo dh ugha gSA oknhuh ds xokg enuyky dks dHkh xksn ugha fy;k tkus dgrs o xksn dh jLe ugha gksuk dgrs gSA tc fd izfroknh ds lHkh xokg xksn dh jLe fof/kor gksuk crkrs gSA jftLVMZ xksnukuk ds pkj o”kZ ckn gh nksuksa i{kksa esa fookn gks x;k vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk rudh la[;k 1 ij xokgkuk dh ekSf[kd lk{; o jftLVMZ xksnukes ds vk/kkj ij tks fu/kkZj.k rudh la[;k 1 ij fd;k gS o fu/kkZj.k iw.kZr;k fof/k lEer gSA oknhuh us LosPNk ls xksnuke iathc} djok;k ;g fLFkfr oknhuh ds dFkuks ls gh iq”V gksrh gS vr% bl rudh ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu/kkZj.k ;Fkkor iq”V fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k vihykFkhZ dh ;g vihy vLohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o fMdzh ipkZ fnukad 17-1-2003 dk iq”V fd;k tkrk gSA fu.kZ; vuqlkj fMdzh ipkZ rS;kj fd;k tkos ,oa [kpkZ vihy i{kdkjku Lo;a ogu djsaxsA ,lMh@& ¼;’kiky flag pkS/kjh½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k la[;k&2 tks/kiqj** 6. Being aggrieved against the concurrent findings and judgments & decrees recorded by both the Courts below, the laintiff-Mst. Amani had filed the present second appeal in this Court on 02.01.2006 which remained on the defect side for a considerable period and was taken up for consideration by the Court only on 27.05.2011 and has taken four years thereafter to be argued even for admission by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The learned counsel Mr. C.R. Jakhar appearing for the appellant-plaintiff-Mst. Amani submitted that the learned Courts below have grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the parties and proceeded only with the documentary evidence of registration of the adoption deed. The learned counsel submitted that the registration of the adoption deed does not make it a valid adoption and since the factum of adoption was not proved by the defendant-Madan Lal, upon whom the burden to prove this issue lies, since the plaintiff-Mst. Amani alleged that the thumb impression on the adoption deed was taken by committing a fraud upon her and she was misled to put her thumb impression on the said document, which was presented before the competent authority, by putting the same before her to be an application for taking power connection on the agricultural fields. The learned counsel further submitted that in the circumstances of the case and in view of the statement of Mst. Amani that the same was got executed by committing fraud upon her, the adoption deed could not have been held to be valid merely on the basis of its registration which deserves to be quashed and cancelled but the learned Courts below have committed an error while holding the adoption deed to be valid and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of various contentions namely, in the cases of Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi & Anr. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1754 , Shyam Sunder Mishra Vs. Sribatcha Mishra & Ors. reported in 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 334 (Orissa), Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors. Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors. reported in 2006 (1) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (S.C.) and Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Smt. Rahisa Begum & Ors. reported in 2011 (2) RRT 1035. 8. The learned counsel Mr. Sribatcha Mishra & Ors. reported in 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 334 (Orissa), Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors. Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors. reported in 2006 (1) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (S.C.) and Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Smt. Rahisa Begum & Ors. reported in 2011 (2) RRT 1035. 8. The learned counsel Mr. C.R. Jakhar further submitted that where the First Appellate Court has failed to re-appreciate the evidence led before the Trial Court by the parties, even this Court can do so in scope of this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and read out the statements of Mst. Amani and other witnesses. The learned counsel Mr. C.R. Jakhar urged that the perversity of the findings of the Courts below gives rise to a substantial question of law to be determined by this Court in the present second appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Yashwant Mehta appearing for the respondent-defendant-Madan Lal relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1056 and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Lal & Ors. Vs. Raja Ram & Anr. reported in 1996 (2) RLW 213 and submitted that Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 raises a strong presumption in favour of such adoption on the basis of registration of the document by the competent authority which was to be disproved by the plaintiff – Mst. Amani but the plaintiff has utterly failed to disprove the document, a registered adoption deed, before the two Courts below and, therefore, the suit was concurrently dismissed by the two Courts below and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law to be considered by this Court. The learned counsel also urged before this Court that the adoption deed in question, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Osian and urged that the burden to prove this document could not be shifted upon the defendant because the present suit seeking cancellation of the adoption deed was filed by the plaintiff-Mst. Amani at the instance of the purchasers of the agricultural lands after such purchase of land only in the year 1997. Amani at the instance of the purchasers of the agricultural lands after such purchase of land only in the year 1997. The learned counsel also submitted that the revenue suits and appeals in relation to the lands sold in favour of the present appellants which were mutated in their favour are pending before the concerned revenue authorities. 10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments and decree as also the records of the both Courts below and the judgments cited at bar including some of the statements of the witnesses which were read before this Court and the registered document, the adoption deed, which was placed for perusal before this Court, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff-Mst. Amani. 11. For cancellation of the adoption deed, a registered document, the plaintiff-Mst. Amani had filed the suit aforesaid. The plaintiff had the opportunity by leading the relevant evidence to dis-prove the contents of the adoption deed which was registered in the year 1990. It is noticed that the adoption of the defendant-Madan Lal was solemnised with religious rituals in presence of the relevant witnesses, who also appeared before the Trial Court. The factum of adoption of defendant-Madan Lal having been proved and there being a strong presumption of its execution on account of the same being a duly registered document and, therefore, the findings about such adoption by the plaintiff-Mst. Amani are the findings of facts. The findings about mis-representation or fraud alleged by the plaintiff-Mst. Amani having gone against the plaintiff-Mst. Amani by the two Courts below are also the findings of facts and material on record, specially the registered adoption deed, does not get dislodged the other evidence and no perversity can be seen in the findings recorded by the Courts below, by this Court. There is no contrary material available on the record of the case to see the findings of facts in the light of perversity. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present second appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff-Mst. Amani is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12. Accordingly and in view of the discussion foregoing, this second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff-Mst. Amani is dismissed. No costs. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present second appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff-Mst. Amani is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12. Accordingly and in view of the discussion foregoing, this second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff-Mst. Amani is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and the parties concerned forthwith.