JUDGMENT : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated 25.7.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali, whereby application filed by Baya Bai and others, under Section 372 of the Act has been rejected. However, the objections filed by Narayan Dutt have been accepted and he has been declared heir of late Mathura Bai and further succession certificate has been ordered to be issued in his name. 2. The litigation has got a checkered history, the dispute pertains to succession to one Mathura Bai. The application under Section 372 of the Act was filed by Baya Bai, Makniya Bai and Gulab Chand before the District Judge, Pali on 11.10.1982 seeking succession certificate with respect to the amount lying with the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sojat City branch in fixed deposits and in saving bank account. 3. Another application under Section 372 of the Act was filed by respondent No. 2 – Narayan Dutt claiming himself to be a adopted son of Late Smt. Mathura Bai, for issuance of succession certificate on 10.7.1984 before the District Judge, Pali. Both the applications were consolidated and it was directed that respondent No. 2 – Narayan Dutt shall be addressed as objector No. 2. 4. On 15.1.1992, the matter was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Sojat. The matter was initially decided by the trial court by judgment dated 15.10.1998, whereby the objections filed by Shyam Lal and Narayan Dutt were rejected and the application filed by Baya Bai, Makniya Bai and Gulab Chand was accepted and it was ordered to grant succession certificate to the legal representatives of said three applicants as all the three applicants had died during the pendency of the proceedings. The judgment dated 15.10.1998 was challenged by Narayan Dutt by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 687/1998, which appeal was allowed by judgment dated 27.1.2012 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the judgment dated 15.10.1998 was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to rehear and decide the matter again. 5. The judgment dated 15.10.1998 was challenged by Narayan Dutt by filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 687/1998, which appeal was allowed by judgment dated 27.1.2012 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the judgment dated 15.10.1998 was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court to rehear and decide the matter again. 5. The case of Baya Bai and others was that Smt. Mathura Bai wife of Late Shri Radhavallabh died on 28.2.1979 in Sojat; Radhavallabh was son of Rewa Shankar; Rewa Shankar had two daughters Mumal Bai and Fati Bai besides the son Radhavallabh; Fati Bai was married to Nathmal and had died 22 years ago; Baya Bai was daughter of Fati Bai and was married to Ramchandra, R/o Jalore; Mumal Bai was married to Bhav Dutt and had daughter Makaniya Bai and son Gulab Chand; Mathura Bai died intestate her husband Radhavallabh, had died before her and both of them had not adopted any one during their life time. 6. Based on the said averments, succession certificate pertaining to the deposits with the Bank was sought. It was indicated in the application that initially Ramchandra S/o Purshottam Das claiming himself to be heir of Mathura Bai applied for issuance of succession certificate being Civil Misc. Case No. 17/79, wherein the fact about the applicants being heirs of the deceased Mathura Bai was suppressed and when this fact was brought to the notice of the court by the non-applicant Mangi Lal therein, Ramchandra withdrew the application. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, Gulab Chand expired and in his place, Shrimali Brahamin Mahalaxmi Trust, Sojat was ordered to be impleaded as legal representative, whereafter during the pendency of the appeal at earlier stage both Baya Bai and Makniya Bai also died and the said Trust was impleaded as their legal representative. 8. Shyam Lal – respondent No. 1 filed objection on 28.5.1983 alleging that the applicants have deliberately not indicated the name of other relatives, the family tree of Mathura Bai was produced as Schedule-A and it was indicated that wife and children of deceased Ram Ratan were alive and they have not been impleaded as party, deceased Mathura Bai had adopted Narayan Dutt S/o Shyam Lal during her life time and after death of Mathura Bai, religious and social obsequies were performed by Narayan Dutt. Important facts pertaining to relationship of Ramchandra, Shyam Lal and Mangilal have been suppressed; escheat proceedings regarding the property of Mathura Bai was pending before the District Collector, Pali. 9. Respondent No. 3 – Durga Dan filed his objection on 31.7.1989 alleging that Mathura Bai died on 28.2.1979; had no legal representative/heir and the property is in possession of the State through Collector, the applicants are not heirs of Mathura Bai; Collector, Pali and State are necessary parties. 10. Respondent No. 2 – Narayan Dutt filed objections on 21.11.1987 claiming himself to be the first class heir of Mathura Bai being her adopted son, it was claimed that Mathura Bai had adopted him during her life time; the application was filed by Ramchandra seeking succession certificate; as Ramchandra was residing mostly at Karnataka, he was not aware of the adoption and after coming to know of the same, the application was withdrawn; during the pendency of the escheat proceedings before the Collector, Pali, applicants cannot claim succession certificate; Mathura Bai adopted him on 13.12.1978 at Sojat and was given in adoption by his father Shyam Lal, the adoption took place in the presence of relatives by adopting due procedure and therefore, he was entitled to get the succession certificate. 11. The trial court framed four issues, which reads as under:- ^^1- vk;k izkFkhZ la[;k 01 ls 03 e`rd eFkqjkckbZ ds mRrjkf/kdkjh ugha gS\ vizkFkhZx.k 2- vk;k izkFkZuk i= ds in la0 nks esa mYysf[kr e`rd jkejru ds iq= ,oa iqf=;ka thfor gSa vxj ,slk gS rks izkFkZuk i= ij mldk D;k vlj gS\ ^vizkFkhZx.k* 3- vk;k e`rd eFkqjkckbZ vius thoudky esa mtznkj ';keyky ds iq= ukjk;.knRr dks xksn fy;k ^vizkFkhZx.k* 4- vuqrks"k** 12. On behalf of the applicants, four witnesses Makniya Bai, Som Lal, Ashok Kumar and Narsingh Rao were produced. On behalf of the objectors, seven witnesses Narayan Dutt, Shyam Lal, Tiku Lal, Kanhaiyalal, Kailash Chandra, Nand Kumar and Mahesh Dan were examined, several documents were also produced. 13. On behalf of the applicants, four witnesses Makniya Bai, Som Lal, Ashok Kumar and Narsingh Rao were produced. On behalf of the objectors, seven witnesses Narayan Dutt, Shyam Lal, Tiku Lal, Kanhaiyalal, Kailash Chandra, Nand Kumar and Mahesh Dan were examined, several documents were also produced. 13. The trial court, after the remand made by the High Court, by the impugned judgment, first dealt with issue No. 3, which pertained to the adoption of Narayan Dutt by Mathura Bai and came to the conclusion that even as per applicant – Makniya Bai, Narayan dutt looked after Mathura Bai during her last time and conducted funeral, which fact is sufficient to prove that the old lady, pleased with the service of Narayan Dutt and being part of the family must has adopted him; documents Ex.-A/1 to A/7 cannot negate the evidence produced by Narayan Dutt and as the documents pertained to the proceedings related to escheat proceedings in which Narayan Dutt was not a party, he did not get any opportunity to contradict the same and if Shyam Lal has shown Narayan Dutt, as his son in the said document, the same might have happened on account of the fact that he was natural born son of Shyam Lal and consequently, came to the conclusion that from the evidence it cannot be said that Narayan Dutt was not an adopted son of Mathura Bai. 14. Issue No. 1 which pertained to the right of applicants Baya Bai and others was negated based on the finding on issue No. 3. 15. While deciding Issue No. 2, it was held that their were several children of Ram Ratan, brother of the applicants and even if, the applicants proved themselves to be heirs of Mathura Bai, as the said persons have not been impleaded as party, succession certificate cannot be issued, however, as they were not heirs of deceased Mathura Bai, the issue has lost its significance and ultimately passed the order as noticed herein-before. 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that Narayan Dutt was adopted son of deceased Mathura Bai. 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that Narayan Dutt was adopted son of deceased Mathura Bai. It was submitted that the alleged adoption took place on 13.12.1978 and Mathura Bai expired on 28.2.1979, i.e. within 2½ months of the alleged adoption, which by itself makes the entire story about adoption doubtful, the requirements of provisions of Sections 6 & 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ('Adoption Act') have been violated; though the issue framed by the trial court was as to whether Narayan Dutt was adopted by Mathura Bai during her life time, the finding recorded by the trial court is that a conclusion cannot be drawn that Narayan Dutt was not adopted son of Mathura Bai, which finding itself is against the issue wherein the burden of proving the issue was on the respondents, however, the same has been decided as if the burden to prove the negative was on the appellants, which has vitiated the finding. Mankiya Bai, who appeared as AW-1 in the witness box was not cross-examined on the issue of adoption and even the case of the respondents was not put in the cross-examination and therefore, the respondents have miserably failed to prove the issue of adoption. With reference to the documents Ex.-A/1 to A/5, which pertained to escheat proceedings and were all filed by Shyam Lal, father of Narayan Dutt, who claims to have given Narayan Dutt in adoption to Mathura Bai, claimed himself and Ramchandra as successors and did not even refer to the adoption, which clearly proves the story of adoption as false, despite being confronted with the documents, the same were not explained. The requirement of a valid adoption like giving and taking having taken place cannot be believed; none from the plaintiff's side, close relatives, were present and no documentary proof have been produced to show that Narayan Dutt was adopted by Mathura Bai and that he has shown himself to be the son of Mathura Bai. 17. The requirement of a valid adoption like giving and taking having taken place cannot be believed; none from the plaintiff's side, close relatives, were present and no documentary proof have been produced to show that Narayan Dutt was adopted by Mathura Bai and that he has shown himself to be the son of Mathura Bai. 17. It was submitted that as the appellants, who were the only successors in terms of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('HS Act'), who were sought to be displaced by alleging an adoption, the burden was heavy on the respondents, which they have failed to discharge and therefore, the finding of the trial court deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 18. It was submitted that the finding on issue No. 2 is also incorrect, inasmuch as, besides the fact that there was no evidence on record regarding the existence of children of Ram Ratan, even if they were in existence, they were not heirs of deceased Mathura Bai and therefore, finding in this regard also deserves to be set-aside. 19. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhusudan Das v. Smt. Narayani Bai & Ors. : AIR 1983 SC 114 . 20. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, it was submitted that the adoption of Narayan Dutt was proved on record from the oral evidence, wherein as many as seven witnesses were produced and all the witnesses in one voice have said that the adoption had taken place and the required ceremonies were also undertaken and therefore, the finding of the trial court does not call for any interference. 21. It was further submitted that the application was filed by three persons namely Makniya Bai, Baya Bai and Gulab Chand. However, except from Makniya Bai, none of the applicants appeared in the witness-box, though Gulab Chand died on 2.1.1997 before which, the evidence of applicants had already been concluded. 22. 21. It was further submitted that the application was filed by three persons namely Makniya Bai, Baya Bai and Gulab Chand. However, except from Makniya Bai, none of the applicants appeared in the witness-box, though Gulab Chand died on 2.1.1997 before which, the evidence of applicants had already been concluded. 22. With regard to the documents Ex.-A/1 to A/7, it was submitted that in none of the documents and proceedings Narayan Dutt was a party and as the person claiming adoption was not a party to the said documents, the same cannot be used against him; as the escheat proceedings in which the documents Ex.- A/1 to A/7 were produced, were summary in nature, the same cannot be used in the present proceedings. It was submitted that from the statement of Makniya Bai AW-1 itself, it is admitted that it was only and only Narayan Dutt, who used to look after Mathura Bai, funeral obsequies were performed by him, proves beyond any doubt that he was adopted by Mathura Bai and therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court does not call for any interference. 23. Reliance was placed on Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil : AIR 1977 SC 1712 ; Kanu Ambu Vish v. The State of Maharashtra : AIR 1971 SC 2256 ; Major Som Nath v. UOI & Anr. : AIR 1971 SC 1910 . 24. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record alongwith the record of the trial court. 25. At the outset, it may be noticed that applicants Baya Bai, Makniya Bai and Gulab Chand, filed an application claiming themselves to be the only heirs of deceased Mathura Bai, it was indicated that Mathura Bai was married to Ramvallabh, who was son of Rewa Shankar; Ramvallabh had two sisters - Mumal Bai and Fati Bai, while Baya Bai was daughter of Fati Bai, Mankiya Bai and Gulab Chand were children of Mumal Bai. 26. 26. HS Act under Section 15 provides for general rules of succession of female Hindu and under Section 16 provides for order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu, wherein firstly, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the son and daughter (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) & the husband and secondly, upon the heirs of the husband. 27. In the present case, as admittedly Mathura Bai had no son, daughter, children of any pre-deceased son or daughter or husband at the time of her death, the property would devolve upon heirs of her husband. 28. The succession in case of Hindu male is governed by Section 8 of the HS Act, wherein the property devolves on the relatives specified in Class-I of the schedule and if there is no heir in Class-I, then upon the heirs specified in Class-II of the schedule. The Schedule with the Act gives out the heirs in Class-I and Class-II. 29. Admittedly, in Class-I of the said schedule none of the relatives of Radhavallabh, husband of Mathura Bai are available and therefore, the property would divolve on Class-II heirs and Class-II heirs indicates sister's son and sister's daughter in entry IV at item No. (2) & (4) respectively. In view thereof, the applicants – Baya Bai, Makniya Bai and Gulab Chand being sister's son and sister's daughter, are the heirs of deceased Mathura Bai. 30. In so far as the existence of legal representatives of Ram Ratan being the legal heirs of deceased Mathura Bai is concerned, the said Ram Ratan, even as per the case of the respondents had died prior to death of Mathura Bai and the Schedule in so far as Class-II heirs are concerned does not provide for devaluation of property on the pre-deceased relatives in contra distinction to what is indicated in Class-I heirs. In view thereof, even if any children of Ram Ratan were available, they would not fall within the heirship of Smt. Mathura Bai. 31. This is besides the fact that no material is available on record to indicate the existence of any legal representatives of deceased Ram Ratan except for indication given by the respondents in the family tree filed alongwith their reply. 32. 31. This is besides the fact that no material is available on record to indicate the existence of any legal representatives of deceased Ram Ratan except for indication given by the respondents in the family tree filed alongwith their reply. 32. In view thereof, the applicants-Baya Bai, Makniya Bai and Gulab Chand were only Class-II heir of Mathura Bai and the finding recorded by the trial court on issue No. 2 besides being wholly cursory, is contrary to the provisions of law as well as material available on record and is therefore, liable to be set-aside. 33. However, in case, the respondent No. 2 Narayan Dutt succeeds in his contention that he was adopted by Mathura Bai before her death on 13.12.1978 in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption Act, then in that case Narayan Dutt would be the only heir of Smt. Mathura Bai in terms of provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the HS Act and the applicants would have no right in the property. 34. It is interesting to note that after the application was filed by three applicants, Shyam Lal was the first person to file objections and inter-alia came out with the case that deceased Mathura Bai had adopted his son Narayan Dutt and prayed that the application be dismissed. Whereafter, one Durga Dan filed objections based on the pendency of escheat proceedings and lastly, Narayan Dutt filed his objections on 21.11.1987 claiming himself to be the only heir of deceased Mathura Bai based on the adoption. For the purpose of proving adoption, Narayan Dutt himself entered the witness-box as NAW-1 and produced NAW-2 Shyam Lal, his father; NAW-3 Tiku Lal, a retired Gram Sewak; Kanhaiyalal, father-in-law of Narayan Dutt as NAW-4; Kailash Chandra Vyas, co-brother of Narayan Dutt as NAW-5; Nand Kumar and Mahesh Dan as NAW-6 & 7 respectively. 35. The principle regarding the level of proof in a case where a natural successor is sought to be displaced by an adopted person has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Das (supra), wherein it has been inter-alia laid down as under:- "19. It is well settled that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity. It is well settled that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity. A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 . It is also true that the evidence in proof of the adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. Kishori Lal v. Chaltibai, (1959) Supp 1 SCR 698 : ( AIR 1959 SC 504 ). Nonetheless the fact of adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact. 20. For a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite, a ceremony imperative in all adoptions, whatever the caste. And this requisite is satisfied in its essence only by the actual delivery and acceptance of the boy, even though there exists an expression of consent or an executed deed of adoption. Shoshinath v. Krishnasunder, (1880) 7 Ind App 250. In Lakshman Singh v. Smt. Rupkanwar, (1962) 1 SCR 477 , 490 : ( AIR 1961 SC 1378 at p. 1381), this Court briefly stated the law thus : "Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may very depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it." In some cases, to complete the adoption a "data human" has been considered necessary, but in the case of the twice-born classes no such ceremony is needed if the adopted boy belongs to the same gotra as the adoptive father. Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit, (1915) 42 Ind App 135 : ( AIR 1915 PC 7 ). Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit, (1915) 42 Ind App 135 : ( AIR 1915 PC 7 ). In the present case, the appellant has pleaded the custom of his community that the act of giving and taking suffices to effect a valid adoption, and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that the further ceremony of "data homam" was necessary." 36. The requirements of valid adoption under the Adoption Act, inter-alia provides for requisites of a valid adoption under Section 6, qualifications of a persons giving in adoption under Section 9, persons who may be adopted under Section 10 and other conditions for a valid adoption under Section 11. The witnesses Tiku Lal, Kanhaiyalal, Kailash Chandra Vyas, Nand Kumar and Mahesh Dan, either have no connection with the family as such or like Kanhaiyalal and Kailash Chandra Vyas are father-in-law and cobrother of Narayan Dutt. None of the witness pertaining to very large family of either Jethmal, Rewa Shankar or any other person, was produced though it was claimed that ceremony was attended by several persons and Kanhaiyalal, father-in-law and Kailash Chandra Vyas, co-brother travelled from Pali and were informed about the adoption seven days in advance, which fact clearly proves that there was sufficient time available for informing and/or calling other relatives as well, however, none of the relatives has been produced to support the contention regarding the adoption. 37. In those circumstances, the conduct of Shyam Lal, father of Narayan Dutt, who being the natural father is a necessary constituent of the entire process of adoption becomes very relevant and significant. 38. The documents, which were produced by the applicants as Ex.-A/1 to A/7, which pertained to escheat proceedings initiated after death of Smt. Mathura Bai, are clearly reflective of the conduct of Shyam Lal wherein Ex.-A/1 is the site report pertaining to the property of Smt. Mathura Bai dated 16.6.1979, which is signed by Narayan Dutt himself. Ex.-A/3 is the reply dated 21.6.1979, wherein Shyam Lal informed that Smt. Mathura Bai accepted Shyam Lal and Ram Chandra, his brother as the close relatives. It was also indicated that regarding the estate of Smt. Mathura Bai, he alongwith Ram Chandra and Gulab Chand and Baya Bai had right and no case of escheat is made out. Ex.-A/3 is the reply dated 21.6.1979, wherein Shyam Lal informed that Smt. Mathura Bai accepted Shyam Lal and Ram Chandra, his brother as the close relatives. It was also indicated that regarding the estate of Smt. Mathura Bai, he alongwith Ram Chandra and Gulab Chand and Baya Bai had right and no case of escheat is made out. He also claimed that he was the close relative of Smt. Mathura Bai and has done the funeral obsequies and the house was in his possession. 39. Another application dated 24.11.1980 Ex.-A/6 was filed by Shyam Lal praying that he alongwith his brother Ram Chandra have filed an application for succession before the District Court, Pali and therefore, the proceedings be dropped. 40. In another objection, filed by Shyam Lal as agent of Ram Chandra, his brother Ex.-A/4, the family tree was given wherein it was not indicated that the deceased Smt. Mathura Bai was succeeded by Narayan Dutt as her heir on account of adoption and Ram Chandra claimed that during life time of Smt. Mathura Bai, he used to look after her and the property was in his possession through Shyam Lal. As noticed hereinbefore, the said application on behalf of Ram Chandra was filed and signed by Shyam Lal himself. 41. Another application dated 19.7.1982 Ex.A/7 was filed by Shyam Lal, wherein it was inter-alia claimed as under:- ^^izkFkhZ gh mijksDr dqdZ'kqnk eky ,oa edku dk ,d ek= ekfyd gS ftls izkIr djus dk dkuwuh gdnkj Hkh izkFkhZ gh gSA** 42. The said conduct of Shyam Lal, which started on 16.6.1979 vide Ex.-A/1 and continued till 19.7.1982 vide Ex.-A/7, clearly indicates that at no stage, Shyam Lal took the plea that Narayan Dutt was the adopted son of Smt. Mathura Bai and repeatedly claimed himself alongwith Ram Chandra, even as agent of Ram Chandra, as entitled to succeed to the properties of deceased Smt. Mathura Bai. The first document Ex.- A/1, is duly signed by Narayan Dutt himself and therefore, the plea of Narayan Dutt claiming unawareness regarding the escheat proceedings is baseless. As to what prevented him to set up his claim in the escheat proceedings is wholly unknown as he has not indicated any reason for not setting up his claim based on the adoption. 43. As to what prevented him to set up his claim in the escheat proceedings is wholly unknown as he has not indicated any reason for not setting up his claim based on the adoption. 43. It is also interesting to note that the alleged adoption had taken place on 13.12.1978, Smt. Mathura Bai died on 28.2.1979 and immediately thereafter the escheat proceedings were initiated and therefore, there was no reason for Shyam Lal to have forgotten and/or not remembering the fact of adoption of Shyam Lal having been adopted son of Smt. Mathura Bai and/or being the only heir of deceased Smt. Mathura Bai. When Shyam Lal appeared in the witness-box, and was confronted with the documents Ex-A/1 to A/7, he avoided to answer any of the questions and/or gave totally evasive/vague answers, inasmuch as, he initially accepted having filed Ex.-A/3, and then denied whether the signatures were put by him or not, admitted that he conducted proceedings on behalf of Ram Chandra and his signatures on Ex.-A/4 and when confronted with the contents of Ex.-A/4 denied that he indicated that Ram Chandra was the closest relative and claimed that the lawyer might have written so, admitted that he did not make any mention of adoption of Narayan Dutt by Smt. Mathura Bai and gave reason that as nobody asked him regarding adoption, he did not disclose the fact about adoption of Narayan Dutt. 44. The explanation of Shyam Lal for not disclosing the alleged adoption is on its face baseless and false, inasmuch as, as soon as it was required of Shyam Lal to make any mention of legal representatives/heir of deceased Smt. Mathura Bai, if the adoption had taken place on 13.7.1978, then within a period of 03 months of alleged adoption, when the requirement arose regarding the succession of Smt. Mathura Bai, in the first instance, Shyam Lal should have taken stand that Narayan Dutt was the only heir and legal representative of Smt. Mathura Bai having been adopted by her. 45. As noticed already herein-above, Narayan Dutt despite being aware of escheat proceedings chose not to contest the same and permitted his father to claim himself to be the heir and entitled to the properties of Smt. Mathura Bai, also is indicative of the fact that in fact, the adoption did not happen on 13.12.1978 or any other date. 46. 45. As noticed already herein-above, Narayan Dutt despite being aware of escheat proceedings chose not to contest the same and permitted his father to claim himself to be the heir and entitled to the properties of Smt. Mathura Bai, also is indicative of the fact that in fact, the adoption did not happen on 13.12.1978 or any other date. 46. So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents pertaining to Section 145 of the Evidence Act are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil (supra) held that even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party, who has made it, it is sound that if a witness is under cross-examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity, if the documents are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. In the present case, the said requirement of Section 145 of the Evidence Act as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed to the hilt, inasmuch as, Shyam Lal was given full opportunity to explain the documents Ex.-A/1 to Ex.-A/7, to which he gave a very lame answer that as he was not asked about the adoption, he did not disclose the fact of adoption and continued to claim himself to be the heir of deceased Smt. Mathura Bai, which explanation on its face is baseless. 47. Similarly, in the case of Kanu Ambu Vish (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even where witness is confronted by his previous statement in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement, the same does not constitute substantive evidence. 47. Similarly, in the case of Kanu Ambu Vish (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even where witness is confronted by his previous statement in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement, the same does not constitute substantive evidence. The fact that Shyam Lal claimed himself to be the sole heir alongwith Ram Chandra as legal heir, which statement in the documents, has been proved in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the same is not being used as substantive evidence in the present case rather the same clearly discloses the conduct of the person, who claims to have given his son in adoption and within 03 months of the said adoption, over a period of two years continued to claim himself to be the legal representatives and does not disclose the fact of adoption at any stage during that period, clearly shows that his testimony regarding having given his son in adoption cannot be believed and therefore, the said judgment, does not came to the aid of the respondents. 48. The judgment in the case of Major Som Nath (supra) cited by the respondent himself clearly brings out the said aspect, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter-alia held as under :- "It is true that when a witness has admitted having signed his previous statements that is enough to prove that some statement of his was recorded and he had appended his signature thereto. The only question is, what use can be made of such statements even where the witness admits having signed the statements made before the Military Authorities. They can at best be used to contradict in the cross-examination of such a witness when he gives evidence at the Trial Court of the accused in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If it is intended to contradict the witness by the writing, the attention of the witness should be called before the writing can be proved to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. If this is not done, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be assailed in respect of those statements by their previous proving that the witness had signed the document. If this is not done, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be assailed in respect of those statements by their previous proving that the witness had signed the document. When the witnesses are contradicted by their previous statements in the manner aforesaid then that part of the statements which has been put to the witness will be considered along with the evidence to assess the worth of the witness in determining his veracity. The whole of the previous statement however cannot treated as substantive evidence." 49. In view of the above, it is apparent that though Narayan dutt has tried to make out a case by way of oral evidence of his father-in-law, co-brother and few other persons, the very fact that the statement of Shyam Lal, the person who claims to have given Narayan Dutt in adoption to Smt. Mathura Bai cannot be believed in view of documentary evidence in the form of Ex.-A/1 to Ex.-A/7 as extensively discussed herein-before, the fundamental requirement of the provisions of Adoption Act of giving in adoption by the parent of adopted child itself is not proved on account of the conduct of Shyam Lal as evidenced hereinbefore, the fact of adoption of Narayan Dutt to Smt. Mathura Bai, cannot be believed and therefore, the respondents have failed to discharge the burden, pertaining to issue No. 3. 50. The trial court committed error of law and fact in not taking into consideration the material documentary evidence, conduct of Shyam Lal, a necessary constituent for giving son in adoption, and assuming negative burden regarding the fact of adoption on the applicants, and therefore, the finding on issue No. 3 cannot be sustained and deserves to be set-aside. 51. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.7.2012 passed by the trial court is quashed and set-aside. The appellants, as represented by Shrimali Brahamin Mahalaxmi Trust, Sojat would be entitled to get succession certificate pertaining to the deposits in the name of deceased Smt. Mathura Bai wife of Radhavallabh on payment of requisite stamp duty. 52. The succession certificate be issued by the trial court expeditiously. 53. No order as to costs.