JUDGMENT : M G Giratkar, J. The Second Appeal was admitted on 9th April, 2007 on the following Substantial Question of Law :- "When the finding of adoption of the plaintiff being given as son and taken by Fakira be held proved in absence of proof of essential ingredients of adoption?" 2. Present Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below. The facts giving rise to this appeal can be summarized as under:- 3. The Appellant fled Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1982 before learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat. The said suit was fled for partition and separate possession of the property described in the plaint. The respondents-defendants appeared and fled their Written Statements. Issues were framed. Both parties adduced their respective evidence. Learned Civil Judge [Junior Division] dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant-plaintiff is the adopted son of Fakira Mude and, therefore, he cannot claim interest in the property left by his real father, Mahadeo. Mahadeo and Fakira were real brothers. Mahadeo had three sons, i.e., appellant and defendant nos. 1 and 2. As per the defence of the respondents, plaintiff was given in adoption to Fakira. Fakira was not having any issue. Mahadeo and Fakira partitioned their property. Mahadeo and Fakira were having equal sixteen acres of agricultural land each. The appellant inherited the said property from Fakira. It is the contention of the appellant that he was not given in adoption and, therefore, he has right in the property left by his real father, Mahadeo. Therefore, the suit was fled. Learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Hinganghat, dismissed the suit. Appeal was fled before the District Judge, Wardha. The said appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal before this Court. 4. Heard learned Adv., Shri Khapre for the appellant. He has submitted that various documents fled on record show that the appellant was not given in adoption. The Will-Deed executed by Fakira on 30th April, 1955 shows that appellant was not his adopted son. Other documents, i.e., School Leaving Certificate etc., show that appellant is the son of Mahadeo. Learned counsel has pointed out Exhs. 133 to 144 and submitted that the appellant is the son of Mahadeo and not Fakira. 5. Learned Adv., has submitted that issue in respect of adoption was not framed by the trial Court. The basic ingredients of adoption are not proved. Learned counsel has pointed out Exhs. 133 to 144 and submitted that the appellant is the son of Mahadeo and not Fakira. 5. Learned Adv., has submitted that issue in respect of adoption was not framed by the trial Court. The basic ingredients of adoption are not proved. Hence, appellant cannot be said to be an adoptive son of Fakira. Learned Adv., has submitted that contents of Will-deed [Exh.133] show that appellant is the cousin of Fakira. There is no dispute that his real father Mahadeo left sixteen acres of agricultural land after his death. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 purchased some agricultural land out of the income of the said property. Therefore, the property purchased by defendant nos. 1 and 3 after the death of Mahadeo becomes a joint family property. The appellant is the son of Mahadeo. Therefore, he is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit property. Learned counsel has submitted that the document executed by Fakira in his lifetime is the most important document which shows that the appellant is the cousin of Fakira and not his son. Learned counsel has submitted that being a real son of Mahadeo, appellant is entitled for his share in the suit property. In support of his submission, the learned counsel pointed out following judgments:- [a] Neelu Narayani (D) through L.Rs. & others Vs. Lakshmanan through L.Rs. & others, (2000) AIR (SCW) 1949, [b] Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh & others Vs. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh (dead) by his legal representatives & another, AIR 1969 SC 1076 , [c] Ghisalal Vs. Dhapubai (dead) by L.Rs. & others Dhapubai (dead) wife of Gopalji through L.Rs. Vs. Ghisalal & others, AIR 2011 SC 644 , [d] A. Raghavamma & another Vs. A. Chenchamma & another, AIR 1964 SC 136 , [e] Yesu Sadhu Nimagre & others Vs. Kundalika Babaji Nimagre & another, 1977 MhLJ 130, and [f] Nandlal Sakharam Vs. Babu Bhika & others, (1997) 2 AllMR 105 , 6. Heard learned Adv. Shri S.R. Deshpande for respondent nos. 1 to 5. He has pointed out the cross-examination of appellant. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that all those documents which are fled on record are obtained by him after fling of suit. The cross-examination shows that those documents are not reliable. The School Leaving Certificate proved by PW 2 is not reliable because of the admission of PW 2 in his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that all those documents which are fled on record are obtained by him after fling of suit. The cross-examination shows that those documents are not reliable. The School Leaving Certificate proved by PW 2 is not reliable because of the admission of PW 2 in his cross-examination. The School Leaving Certificate was obtained by the son of plaintiff. Those documents are not reliable. On the other hand, the documents fled by the respondents/defendants clearly show that plaintiff was given in adoption to Fakira. His name is recorded in various documents, revenue records etc., as "Pandhari Fakira Mude." All those documents show that the plaintiff is the adoptive son of Fakira and, therefore, he cannot claim partition of the property left by Mahadeo. Learned Adv., has pointed out evidence of DW 2 - Shri Kamlakar and submitted that he has stated in his evidence that plaintiff was given in adoption to Fakira when he was aged about two years. As per his evidence, all the formalities/rituals were performed. Therefore, adoption is proved. 7. Learned Adv. Shri S.R. Deshpande has submitted that issue in respect of legal heir, i.e., Issue No.1, was framed by the trial Court. Evidence in respect of the issue of adoption was adduced by both parties. Therefore, there was need to frame issue of adoption. In support of his submission, he has pointed out the decision in the case of Satyadhyantirtha Swami Vs. Raghunath Daji Patil & others, (1926) AIR Bombay 384 Learned Adv., has pointed out admission of plaintiff and submitted that for a long period, he did not claim any partition and, therefore, the suit is barred by law of limitation. In support of his submission, he has pointed out the decision in the case of Abdul Basheer & others Vs. Abdul Kareem & others, 2008 AIR (NOC) 507 (Raj.). 8. There is no dispute that Mahadeo and Fakira were real brothers. Mahadeo and Fakira were living separately. Both were having sixteen acres of agricultural land each. There is no dispute that Mahadeo had three sons, i.e., plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that being a real son of Mahadeo, he is entitled for a share in the property left by Mahadeo. Mahadeo and Fakira were living separately. Both were having sixteen acres of agricultural land each. There is no dispute that Mahadeo had three sons, i.e., plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that being a real son of Mahadeo, he is entitled for a share in the property left by Mahadeo. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff, Pandhari, was given in adoption to Shri Fakira Mude. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim partition of the property left by Mahadeo. 9. There is no dispute that Fakira was not having any child. Evidence of DW 2 Shankar Kalamkar shows that he was preset at the time of adoption ceremony. He has stated that plaintiff, Pandhari was grown up in the family of Fakira. Plaintiff was given in adoption by his father, Mahadeo, to Fakira. Fakira was not having any child. At the time of adoption, one Nanaji Bramhan [priest] was called for adoption ceremony. After bathing and wearing new clothes, the plaintiff was given by Mahadeo to Fakira. Hom-Havan rituals were performed by the priest. That time, Yashodabai, real mother of plaintiff, and Deokabai, adoptive mother, were present. He has further stated that Yashoda and Mahadeo gave their son Pandhari to Fakira. The plaintiff was residing with Fakira. Till the death of Fakira, he was cultivating his land. After his death, plaintiff, Pandhari, is cultivating those agricultural lands. Plaintiff is known in their village as "Pandhari Fakira Mude." 10. This witness - Shankar Kalamkar was aged about eighty years when he adduced his evidence before the Court. Age of the plaintiff when he adduced his evidence before the Court appears to be sixty-four years. Therefore, the evidence of Shankar Kalamkar that he was aged about eighteen years when the plaintiff was given in adoption to Fakira appears to be correct. 11. The oral evidence in respect of adoption is well corroborated by the documentary evidence. Various documents fled on record show that plaintiff is the son of Fakira Mude. 12. Learned counsel Shri Khapre has appointed out the Will-Deed and submitted that in the Will-Deed, deceased Fakira has stated that plaintiff is his cousin and, therefore, this document itself shows that Fakira never adopted plaintiff as his son. Hence, the adoption is not proved. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for his share left by his father, Mahadeo. 12. Learned counsel Shri Khapre has appointed out the Will-Deed and submitted that in the Will-Deed, deceased Fakira has stated that plaintiff is his cousin and, therefore, this document itself shows that Fakira never adopted plaintiff as his son. Hence, the adoption is not proved. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for his share left by his father, Mahadeo. In support of his submission, learned Adv. Shri Khapre has pointed out the decision in the case of Neelu Narayani [supra]. Learned Adv., has pointed out other documents and submitted that various documents, i.e., School Leaving Certificate etc., show that the documents fled on record proved that the plaintiff is the son of Mahadeo and not Fakira. In support of his submission, he has pointed out the decision in the case of A. Raghavamma & another [supra]. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Neelu Narayan [supra] as under:- "In these appeals the appellants are calling in question the correctness of the order made by the High Court in a second appeal. Respondent No.1 - Lakshmanan brought a suit stating that he had the right of redemption in respect of certain property. The defendant also fled another suit to which he plaintiff was impleaded as defendant. Both suits were tried together. Ultimately the trial court took the view that the respondent No.1 had not established that he is the son of Kesavan and therefore, he had no right to claim redemption. That view of the trial Court was upheld in appeal by the District Court. In the second appeal, the High Court relied on two documents, the Exhibit A-9 and Exhibit A-10. Ex. A-9 was a chitty bond executed by Lakshmi Pankajakshy, Kesavan Rama-krishnan and Kesavan Lakshmanan on 27-8-1128. Pankajakshy was referred to as belonging to Cheriya Pattur House. On that basis the High Court came to the conclusion that interconnection between the parties were established and Ramakrishnan and Lakshmanan are sons of Kesavan and when they are connected with Pankajakshy, daughter of Lakshmi and all of them are of the same place of Pathirikari Muri. Cheriya Pattur House of Pathirakari Muri is the very same family referred to in Exh. A-10. The partition deed Ex.A-10 dated 12-6-1101 was examined and the High Court stated that the property belonged to the members of the family Cheriyapattu Veedu situated in Pathirikarimuri. Cheriya Pattur House of Pathirakari Muri is the very same family referred to in Exh. A-10. The partition deed Ex.A-10 dated 12-6-1101 was examined and the High Court stated that the property belonged to the members of the family Cheriyapattu Veedu situated in Pathirikarimuri. Group No.5 therein is of Lakshmi and her minor children - Pankajakshy, Kesavan Ramkrishnan and Kesavan Lakshmanan. They divided the tarward properties. That Kesavan had two sons by name Ramkrishnan and Lakshmanan and that their mother was Lakshmi is evident from, and clearly established by this document and, therefore, it was evident from, and clearly established by this document and, therefore, it was evident that Kesavan Lakshmanan is the plaintiff in the suit was the son of Lakshmi or the descendant of Kesavan. On that basis the suit was decreed." "3. When a question of title arises on the basis of interpretation of the proved document it is certainly a question of law and necessarily such a question can be examined even in a second appeal and that is what has been done by the High Court. We do not think it proper to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A Raghavamma & another [supra] has held as under :- "One V was alleged to have been adopted by his uncle P in 1905. So far as the documentary evidence went, till 1911 there was no document recording the fact that V was the adopted son of P, and after 1911 there had been contradictory recitals in the documents. So far as the documentary evidence went, till 1911 there was no document recording the fact that V was the adopted son of P, and after 1911 there had been contradictory recitals in the documents. Broadly speaking whenever V executed a document he described himself as the son of his father C and whenever third parties executed documents, he was described as adopted son of P. He fled suits, sometimes as the son of C and sometimes as the adopted son of P. His name was entered in the accounts relating to village Paruchur, but not in the accounts relating to village Upputur; he gave evidence declaring himself as the son of C and also insured his life as such; he operated on the accounts of third parties as the son of C, while in the will executed by C, he was described as the adopted son of P, on the death of V his adoptive mother, who under the will of C was entitled to continue in possession and management, handed over the entire management of V's wife indicating thereby that the will was not really intended to take effect." "Held that in this state of evidence it was not possible to say that there had been a consistent pattern of conduct from which a Court should draw the inference that the adoption must have taken place. In this state of evidence when both the Courts found, on a careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence and the probabilities arising therefrom that V's adoptive mother on whom the burden of proof lay to establish that V was adopted to P had failed to discharge it, the Supreme Court could not say that the finding was vitiated by such errors that it should review the entire evidence over again and come to a conclusion of its own. The supreme Court would therefore, accept the concurrent find of fact that there was no adoption." 13. In the present case, the defendants have proved by adducing evidence of DW 2, Shankar Kalamkar, about the adoption ceremony. The evidence of DW 2 Shankar Kalamkar is reliable in view of other corroborated documentary evidence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the will-deed executed by Fakira during his lifetime. The said will-deed is to be read as a whole. Plaintiff has denied the contents of portion marked 'A' of the will-deed. The evidence of DW 2 Shankar Kalamkar is reliable in view of other corroborated documentary evidence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the will-deed executed by Fakira during his lifetime. The said will-deed is to be read as a whole. Plaintiff has denied the contents of portion marked 'A' of the will-deed. It is pertinent to note that this Will-Deed [Exh.97] is proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, he cannot deny the contents. From the reading of the Will-Deed [Exh.97] it is clear that deceased Fakira was not having any child. The plaintiff Pandharinath was maintained by him as a son from his childhood and he has love and affection like his son. He has further stated in the Will-Deed that the plaintiff is his only legal heir and after his death, the property would devolve on him. But he has a wife and, therefore, he has executed Will-Deed. The contents of Will-Deed further show that all the property mentioned in the Will-Deed was given to his wife and after the death of his wife, the plaintiff would become the owner of the property. This Will-deed was acted upon by the plaintiff. Revenue records show his name as "Pandhari Fakira Mude." Plaintiff became the owner by virtue of Will-Deed. Mutation entry is recorded in the year 1988, i.e., after the death of his adoptive mother. The admission of plaintiff in his evidence clearly shows that he is only in possession of the property left by Fakira. Therefore, it is clear that contents of Will-Deed cannot be taken to show that plaintiff is the cousin and not the real son. Though it is written in the Will-Deed that he was his cousin, in the opening para of the Will-Deed, it is specifically written that the plaintiff was maintained from his childhood by him as a son and he is the only legal heir of his property. This itself shows that plaintiff is the son of Fakira. After adoption by Fakira, his status in the real family comes to an end. 14. There is no dispute that after the adoption, it is death in the real family and birth in adoptive family. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim a share in the property of his real father. Plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that he along with defendant nos. 1 and 3 purchased agricultural land from one Damodhar Nilkanthrao and others in the year 1967. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim a share in the property of his real father. Plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that he along with defendant nos. 1 and 3 purchased agricultural land from one Damodhar Nilkanthrao and others in the year 1967. His name in the registered sale-deed [Exh.153] is "Pandhari Fakira Mude." on the basis of the sale-deed, his name is recorded in the 7/12 extract as "Mude Pandhari Fakira". All 7/12 extracts fled in the appeal along with Civil Application No. 365 of 2013 show the name of plaintiff as "Pandhari Fakira, resident of Kalamna". The sale-deed fled with the List is of the year 2003. The plaintiff has sold his agricultural land to one Moreshwar Deotale. He has sold his agricultural land bearing Survey No. 124. In the sale-deed, name of plaintiff is shown as "Pandhari son of Fakira Mude.". Affidavit fled with the sale-deed dated 20th April, 2003 shows that plaintiff has sworn his affidavit in the name of Pandhari Fakira Mude. The 7/12 extract fled with sale-deed of Survey No. 124 shows the name of the plaintiff as "Pandhari Fakira, resident of Kalamna." 15. Plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that there is no other person named as "Pandhari Fakira" in the village Kalamna. The plaintiff has admitted that some portion of his agricultural land was acquired by the Government for Lower Vena Project. A notice was issued in the name of Pandhari Fakira Mude. He has received the completion of the acquired land. Exh.162 is the notice along with the statement of Land Acquisition Ofcer. This statement shows that land of Pandhari Fakira Mude bearing Survey No. 124, area 0.5 Are was acquired. The plaintiff has admitted that he has received the compensation of the said land. Ration Card [Exh.161] shows the name of the plaintiff as "Mude Pandharinath Fakira, resident of Kalmana." Voter List [Exh.160] shows the name of plaintiff as "Mude Pandhari Fakira." The various documents fled by the defendants show that those documents are before fling of the suit. The Green Card, which was issued to the plaintiff, is also in the name of Pandhari Fakira. All the documents fled by the plaintiff were fled after fling of the suit. He has admitted in his cross-examination that before fling the suit, he was not having any document to show his name as "Pandhari Mahadeo Mude." 16. The Green Card, which was issued to the plaintiff, is also in the name of Pandhari Fakira. All the documents fled by the plaintiff were fled after fling of the suit. He has admitted in his cross-examination that before fling the suit, he was not having any document to show his name as "Pandhari Mahadeo Mude." 16. Learned Counsel Shri Khapre has pointed out School Leaving Certificate [Exh.133]. This document is proved by PW 2 - Baba Kulsunge. He has stated in his evidence that Exh.133 was issued by the Headmaster Shri Deotale. Headmaster Shri Deotale is the relative of plaintiff. His further cross-examination shows that Exh.133 is not a reliable document. From the Register, this witness has stated that the Register is in a torn condition. There is no paging in the register. The register in which the name of Pandhari was entered is in a torn condition. It is not legible. The register does not show the name of the school, name of the village etc. Therefore, cross-examination of this witness celarly shows that Exh.183 is not a reliable document. Moreover, cross-examination of plaintiff himself shows that this document was obtained by his son. Therefore, admission of plaintiff itself shows that those documents can be said to be prepared after fling of the suit. Hence, those documents are not rightly relied by both the courts below. 17. In view of the evidence on record, the cited judgments by the side of appellant are not applicable to the case in hand. 18. Learned Adv. Shri Khapre has submitted that issue in respect of adoption was not framed by the trial Court. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the plaintiff to adduce proper evidence. 19. The trial Court has framed Issue No.1 as under:- "1. Does the plaintiff prove that he is legal heir of deceased Mahadeorao?" The negative finding is recorded on this issue. The plaintiff is claiming that he is a re-sale son of Mahadeo and he was never given in adoption to Fakira. The evidence on record shows that he was given in adoption to Fakira and, therefore, he is not the legal heir of his real father Mahadeo. The plaintiff is claiming that he is a re-sale son of Mahadeo and he was never given in adoption to Fakira. The evidence on record shows that he was given in adoption to Fakira and, therefore, he is not the legal heir of his real father Mahadeo. In the case of Satyadhyantirtha Swami [supra], this Court has held that "If there is no issue framed on a question but the parties have adduced evidence and discussed it before the Court, and the Court decides it as if there was an issue about it, the decree need not be set aside in appeal on the ground merely that no such issue was framed." In the present appeal, though the issue in respect of adoption was not specifically framed, Issue No.1 framed by the trial Court includes the issue of adoption. Both parties adduced their evidence in respect of the issue of adoption. Hence, the judgment of Trial Court cannot be said to be bad for not framing of issue in respect of adoption. 20. Learned counsel Shri Khapre has submitted that the properties purchased by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 are a joint family property because those properties were purchased from the income of the joint family property. It is pertinent to note that defendant nos. 1 and 3 partitioned their property during the lifetime of their mother and thereafter they have purchased their separate property. Revenue record, i.e., Record of Right [Exh.159], shows the entry of mutation. The remark of Revenue Inspector dated 17th September, 1975 shows that Vithoba and Namdeo along with their mother Yashoda were present. There was no dispute about the partition. Therefore, their names were mutated. The plaintiff was aware about all these facts, but he did not raise any objection. Nothing is produced on record by the plaintiff to show that the defendant nos. 1 and 3 purchased other properties out of the income of the joint family property. Therefore, claim of the plaintiff seeking partition in the property purchased by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 is rightly discarded by both the Courts below. 21. The suit was fled in the year 1982. The documents fled in this appeal along with Civil Application No. 365 of 2014 show that sale-deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Moreshwar Deotale is of the year 2003. 1 and 3 is rightly discarded by both the Courts below. 21. The suit was fled in the year 1982. The documents fled in this appeal along with Civil Application No. 365 of 2014 show that sale-deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Moreshwar Deotale is of the year 2003. The 7/12 extracts of Survey No. 49/3, 24 and 25/1 show the name of plaintiff as "Pandhari Fakira Mude. All the material documents fled/proved by the defendants clearly show that appellant is not the son of Mahadeo Mude. He was given in adoption to Fakira Mude when plaintiff was aged about two years. Since then, plaintiff is behaving a a son of Fakira Mude. The admission of plaintiff in his cross-examination is very material. In the cross-examination, plaintiff has stated that defendant nos. 1 and 3 never cultivated the land of Fakira. He has denied material pleadings in the plaint in the cross-examination. He has stated in his cross-examination that he was cultivating sixteen acres of land along with Fakira. He had purchased nine acres of land from one Kalamkar and he sold that land to Upase. He has further stated that land was purchased from the income of agricultural lands of Fakira. This itself shows that he was residing with Fakira and as a son he had purchased agricultural land from Kalamkar out of the income of agricultural land of Fakira. From the perusal of the cross-examination of the plaintiff, it appears that he has given evasive answers. In view of the material documents placed on record, his evidence is not reliable. It appears from his cross-examination that all the documents [Exhs.133 to 144] were collected by his son after fling of the suit. The main brain for fling the suit is not the plaintiff, but his son. The admission of plaintiff in his cross-examination shows that his father Mahadeo died in 1963. Since then, till fling of the suit in the year 2001, he did not claim any partition from the defendants. The silence for a long time on the part of plaintiff itself shows that he was given in adoption to Fakira. His conduct shows that he is adoptive son of Fakira. His admissions and documents clearly show that he has inherited the property left by his adoptive father Fakira. Therefore, he cannot claim any partition in the property of his real father Mahadeo. 22. His conduct shows that he is adoptive son of Fakira. His admissions and documents clearly show that he has inherited the property left by his adoptive father Fakira. Therefore, he cannot claim any partition in the property of his real father Mahadeo. 22. The learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court rightly recorded their finding. The plaintiff failed to prove that he is the real son/legal heir of deceased Mahadeo Mude and, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for partition in respect of the suit property. Appeal is without any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.