JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dumka in Title Appeal No. 10 of 2004/01 of 2007 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of reversal, the learned first appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Dumka in Title Suit No. 31 of 1993 and in paragraph no. 4 at page no. 15 has held that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that the actual ceremony of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in accordance with law in between the defendant no. 4 and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the defendant no. 3 and the said deed of adoption obtained by defendant no. 1 by playing fraud and misrepresentation upon the defendant no. 4. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the parties to the suit are Hindu by religion and are governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu law. The recorded tenant- Guli Mandal with his 1/3rd share of land was residing with his wife and four sons who all formed joint Hindu family and all the sons of Guli Mandal were joint till their deaths. Out of the four sons of Guli Mandal, the lineage of two sons became extinct and the plaintiffs are the surviving descendants of lineage of one son of Guli Mandal namely Janki Mandal. The lineage of other son of Guli Mandal namely Bibhuti Mandal consisted of his deserted widow namely Robni Mossamat. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no. 1 is possessing and managing the entire property of her grand father-in-law, the recorded tenant-Guli Mandal. Robni Mossamat deserted her husband 25 years before filing of the suit and Bibhuti Mandal died about 22 years before filing of the suit. Basudeo Mandal- the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 came in exclusive possession of the entire land. The defendant no. 4-Robni Mossamat after she deserted her husband about 25 years back permanently settled and resided with her relation Anand Mandal in Village-Kumharkuli severing all her connections with the family of Bibhuti Mandal. Robni Mossamat did not even came on the death of Bibhuti Mandal. 1 came in exclusive possession of the entire land. The defendant no. 4-Robni Mossamat after she deserted her husband about 25 years back permanently settled and resided with her relation Anand Mandal in Village-Kumharkuli severing all her connections with the family of Bibhuti Mandal. Robni Mossamat did not even came on the death of Bibhuti Mandal. In the month of June, 1993, the defendant no. 1-Dhiren Chandra Mandal duped the defendant no. 4 in the guise of getting the power of attorney executed by Robni Mossamat in favour of the defendant no. 1 for getting back the property of Bibhuti Mandal and also taking advantage of old age and ailing condition of the defendant second party no. 4-Robni Mossamat; the defendant no. 1 instigated the defendant second party no. 4 to execute a paper authorizing him to look after her interest in her properties and cultivation work so that she may get back land and continued polluting her brain till July, 1993. The defendant no. 1 in connivance with the deed writer, witnesses and others played fraud and got the alleged deed of so called adoption prepared on his own instance and got it registered on or about 31.07.1993. During the transplantation in the middle of August, 1993, the defendant no. 1 wanted to intervene in cultivation work of the plaintiff no. 1 and on protest, he declared that son of Kartik Mandal has been adopted by Robni Mandalain- the defendant no. 4 and registered paper has been executed to this effect. On hearing this, the plaintiffs and all the villagers including the witnesses to the document became astonished and opposed and did not allow the defendant no. 1 to disturb the transplantation work of plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs further asserted that the defendant second party no. 4 or her predeceased deserted husband-Bibhuti Mandal never expressed any desire to adopt anyone as son nor she had any necessity to adopt and she severed all her connection with her husband. The plaintiffs further pleaded that suitable boys were available in her own family of her husband’s own brother’s sons. Hence, there was no rhyme or reason for the defendant no. 2 to go for another boy of distinct lineage of gotias. The plaintiffs sought declaration that defendant first party no. 3 had never been adopted by the defendant second party no. Hence, there was no rhyme or reason for the defendant no. 2 to go for another boy of distinct lineage of gotias. The plaintiffs sought declaration that defendant first party no. 3 had never been adopted by the defendant second party no. 4 and a decree declaring that by virtue of the alleged deed of adoption dated 31.07.1993, the defendant first party no. 3 has not acquired the status of son of the defendant second party no. 4 and also a decree for cancelling the deed of adoption dated 31.07.1993 being the registered deed no. 113 dated 31.07.1993 as also the cost of the suit and other reliefs or reliefs, if any, to which the plaintiffs is entitled basing upon the following grounds: (a) The defendant second party no. 4-Mosst. Robni Mandalain never adopted the defendant first party no. 3-Kartik Mandal and the date of adoption is fictitious and imaginary. (b) Robni Mandalain defendant no. 4 never expressed any desire nor she had any necessity of taking any boy in adoption and her L.T.I. were obtained on paper by fraud under misrepresentation of facts and she has never executed any adoption deed nor she appeared before any Officer and has never admitted the execution of adoption deed. (c) No rituals required for adoption was ever performed nor any giving and taking ceremony of the defendant no. 3 ever took place and defendant no. 3 never resided with the defendant no. 4. The defendant no. 3 still continue to reside in the house of his natural parent and never lived with the defendant no. 4. (d) The defendant no. 3 is known by his original name and son of his natural father. The alleged deed of adoption was never scribed at the instance or in presence of defendant no. 4. (e) The attesting witnesses of the alleged deed of adoption was in inimical terms with the plaintiff and even such witnesses were not knowing the purpose of document over which they were putting their signature and L.T.I. (f) No relation or village of the parties have come to the imaginary house of the defendant no. 4 in village-Khuthan on 03.07.1993 ‘guru purnima’ day or any other day to witness the imaginary katha puja and the imaginary adoption. (g) The defendant no. 3 permanently resided in village Kumharkuli within Godda district and she is old weak lady both mentally and physically. 4. 4 in village-Khuthan on 03.07.1993 ‘guru purnima’ day or any other day to witness the imaginary katha puja and the imaginary adoption. (g) The defendant no. 3 permanently resided in village Kumharkuli within Godda district and she is old weak lady both mentally and physically. 4. In their joint written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4, they, challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and pleaded that the mother of the plaintiff no. 1 gave her entire land to Bibhuti Mandal for a family arrangement and the defendant Robni Mosammat never deserted her husband and she never resided with her relation Anand Mandal at village Kumarkuli. These defendants further pleaded that the defendant no. 4-Robni Mosammat was aged about 50 years. Hence, it was necessary to adopt the son to look after her old age and performing last rites and at last found the defendant no. 3 aged about 9 years who was the second son of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and are related to the defendant no. 3 as her husband father’s brother’s son. Hence, the defendant no. 3 was fit to be taken in adoption. They also pleaded that all the rituals of the adoption was performed and after adoption, the defendant no. 3 is known as Pradip Kumar Mandal. These defendants further pleaded that on 31.07.1993, in the token of such adoption which took place on 03.07.1993, the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 executed a registered deed at Dumka which was registered as Adoption Deed No. 11093 and no fraud was practiced in execution of the said adoption registered deed. 5. The defendant no. 3 being minor filed a written statement through the guardian ad litem and he adopted the written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that though the written statement filed in this case, it has been mentioned that the same was filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 but perusal of the written statement reveals that only L.T.I. purported to be of Most. Robni has been affixed on top right corner of each of the pages of the written statement except the last two pages in which the affidavit and verification has been mentioned. 7. 1, 2 and 4 but perusal of the written statement reveals that only L.T.I. purported to be of Most. Robni has been affixed on top right corner of each of the pages of the written statement except the last two pages in which the affidavit and verification has been mentioned. 7. On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following five issues: (I) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (II) Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action for the suit? (III) Whether the defendant no. 3 is the adopted son of defendant no. 4? (IV) Whether the adoption deed no. 113 dated 31.7.1993 is liable to be cancelled? (V) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief or reliefs? 8. The learned trial court considered the evidence in the record i.e. the oral testimony of the five witnesses examined by the plaintiffs as also the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to 1/c and also the oral testimony of the eight witnesses examined by the defendants first party and the sole testimony of DW-1 who was examined from the defendant no. 4 second party and also the document which has been marked Ext. A, the copy of the negative of photographs and photographs which are marked Ext. I and II respectively. 9. The learned trial court took up issue nos. (III) and (IV) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the defendant no. 3-Kartik Mandal has validly adopted the son of defendant no. 4-Robni Mossamat and defendant no. 3 has required the status of adopted son and adoption deed no. 113 dated 31.07.1993 is valid document and binding upon the parties. Thereafter the learned trial court took up issue nos. (I) and (II) together and held that the plaintiffs are Robni Mossamat’s husband’s brother’s wife and sons and Robni Mossamat is still alive and during her life time, the plaintiffs has no status and went on to hold that the plaintiffs have no valid cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is not maintainable. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. (V) and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs. 10. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no. (V) and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 10 of 2004/01 of 2007 in the court of District Judge, Dumka which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 11. The learned first appellate court formulated the following three point for determinations for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiff/defendant had valid cause of action for the suit and suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) As to whether the deed of adoption No. 113 dated 31.07.1993 obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation and it is liable to be cancelled? (iii) As to whether the actual ceremony of giving and taking of adoption has taken place in accordance with law? 12. The learned first appellate court took up the point for determination no. (i) and considering the evidence in the record to the effect that when the plaintiffs came to know about adoption from the defendant no. 4 and when the defendant no. 4 denied that she ever adopted the defendant no. 3, thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit and as such the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action. The learned first appellate court thereafter took up point for determination no. (ii) and considered the evidence of pro-forma defendant no. 4, who was examined as DW-1 of defendant second party, wherein she has categorically stated that she never executed the deed of adoption rather she came to Dumka registry office for executing a power of attorney and she put her L.T.I. on the same. The learned first appellate court also considered the fact that the defendant no. 1 is a teacher and a literate person but he has himself not verified the written statement rather the written statement purported to have been verified only by the defendant no. 4-Robni Mossamat who has put her L.T.I. The learned first appellate court also considered that the deed writer of the purported the adoption deed, who was examined as DW-6, has nowhere stated that the deed of adoption was drafted by him at the instance of the defendant no. 4-Robni Mossamat who has put her L.T.I. The learned first appellate court also considered that the deed writer of the purported the adoption deed, who was examined as DW-6, has nowhere stated that the deed of adoption was drafted by him at the instance of the defendant no. 4 and in his cross-examination, he has stated that he had no knowledge about Robni Mossamat nor he has stated that after preparing the draft and typing the same on the stamp paper, the same was read over and explained to Robni Mossamat nor the attesting witnesses of the adoption deed who were examined as DW-3 and 4 have stated that deed was prepared at the instance of the DW-3. The learned first appellate court also took note of the fact that the defendant no. 4 who was examined as defendant second party no. 1 has admitted the contents of the plaint and by thus considering the same, the learned first appellate court came to the conclusion that the deed of adoption was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation of facts hence, the same is void and is liable to be cancelled and decided the point for determination no. (ii) in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 4. The learned first appellate court next took up point for determination no. (iii) and after taking into consideration the evidence in the record that the defendant no. 4 the purported adoptive mother who was examined as DW-1 of the defendant second party, has stated that the physical act of giving and taking has not been made and hence, she never adopted the defendant no. 3. The purported adoptive mother denied about any ceremony of adoption in her evidence. Though the adoptive son is reading in the school but the defendant no. 1 has not produced any certificate of the school to show the parentage of the defendant no. 3 mentioned in the school register. The learned first appellate court also took note of the fact that the defendant no. 4 in his deposition as a witness in court has stated that she never filed any written statement and she filed a petition during the hearing of the suit before the learned trial court to the effect that she has not filed the written statement in this suit and thus, the written statement itself become suspicious. 4 in his deposition as a witness in court has stated that she never filed any written statement and she filed a petition during the hearing of the suit before the learned trial court to the effect that she has not filed the written statement in this suit and thus, the written statement itself become suspicious. The learned first appellate court also took note of the fact that defendants have not examined any near relative or any permanent resident of the village to show the ceremony of any adoption having been taken place and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved that the actual ceremony of giving and taking of adoption did not take place in accordance with law, in between the defendant no. 4 and the defendant nos. 1 and 2, in respect of the defendant no. 3 and the said deed of adoption obtained by defendant no. 1 by playing fraud and misrepresentation upon the defendant no. 4 and allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of the learned trial court in respect of the issue nos. (III) and (IV). 13. At the time of Admission of this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed vide order dated 14.05.2009: (1) Whether the Court of appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court? (2) Whether on the face of the registered deed of adoption coupled with the evidence in support thereof the Court of appeal below has committed error of law in disbelieving the adoption? (3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court can be sustained in law for non-consideration of Section 15 and 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956? 14. Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and Another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 , paragraph no. 33 of which reads as under: “33. The appellate courts could therefore, not have drawn any adverse inference against the appellant-plaintiffs on the basis of a mere technicality, to the effect that the natural parents of the adoptive child had acted as witnesses, and not as executors of the document. and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 , paragraph no. 33 of which reads as under: “33. The appellate courts could therefore, not have drawn any adverse inference against the appellant-plaintiffs on the basis of a mere technicality, to the effect that the natural parents of the adoptive child had acted as witnesses, and not as executors of the document. Undoubtedly, adoption disturbs the natural line of succession, owing to which, a very heavy burden is placed upon the propounder to prove the adoption. However, this onus shifts to the person who challenges the adoption, once a registered document recording the adoption is brought before the court. This aspect must be considered taking note of various other attending circumstances i.e. evidence regarding the religious ceremony (giving and taking of the child), as the same is a sine qua non for valid adoption.” Submits that it is a settled principle of law that since adoption disturb the natural line of succession, owing to which, a very heavy burden is placed upon the propounder to prove the adoption. However, this onus shifts to the person who challenges the adoption, once a registered document recording the adoption is brought before the court and the learned first appellate court has failed to consider this aspect of the law. It is further submitted by Mr. Ambastha that the learned trial court has considered the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and the learned first appellate court without any cogent reason has offset the finding of the learned trial court on trivial grounds without considering the mandate of law as envisaged under Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court being not sustainable in law be set aside.” 15. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that in this case, the alleged adoptive mother being the defendant no. 4 was alive at the time of trial and she herself being examined as DW-1 of the defendant second party has categorically stated that she never took the defendant no. 3 on adoption and she denied the rituals which are essential for valid adoption having ever taken place. It is then submitted by Mr. 4 was alive at the time of trial and she herself being examined as DW-1 of the defendant second party has categorically stated that she never took the defendant no. 3 on adoption and she denied the rituals which are essential for valid adoption having ever taken place. It is then submitted by Mr. Sharma that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the defendant no. 4 who was examined as a witness to discard or disbelieve her testimony and the mala-fide intention of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is apparent from the fact that they not only played fraud with the defendant no. 4 by making her to go to the Sub-Registrar office and maneuvering to manage a adoption deed purportedly executed by her but they have played fraud in court by making a forged written statement having been purported to have been filed by the defendant no. 4, of course, during the trial itself, the defendant no. 4 filed a petition in the learned trial court itself that she herself has not filed any written statement in the suit and this fraudulent act of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is apparent from the fact that they themselves neither signed the written statement nor they verified the same and their signature is not appearing anywhere in the written statement though it is requirement of law that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader of course where a party pleading is by reason of absence or for other good cause unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same as has been envisaged under Rule 14 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure but the defendant nos. 1 and 2 has never authorized the defendant no. 4 to sign the written statement on their behalf though purportedly, the single written statement available in the record has been jointly filed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 together. It is further submitted by Mr. 1 and 2 has never authorized the defendant no. 4 to sign the written statement on their behalf though purportedly, the single written statement available in the record has been jointly filed by the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 together. It is further submitted by Mr. Sharma that under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court, wherein on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence in the record in their right perspective, the learned first appellate court has arrived at a conclusion that the adoption deed was obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. It is then submitted by Mr. Sharma that no doubt the principle of law reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and Another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. and Others (supra) is a settled principle of law but in this case, the registered deed of adoption itself having been held to be obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, the same will not entail the shifting of onus to the plaintiffs who challenges their adoption and who is joined by the defendant no. 4. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 16. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the first substantial question of law as to whether the Court of appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is concerned, it is a settled principle of law 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 and 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhusudan Das vs. Narayanibai (Deceased) by LRs. and Others, (1983) 1 SCC 35 and it has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhusudan Das vs. Narayanibai (Deceased) by LRs. and Others, (1983) 1 SCC 35 and it has also been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhusudan Das vs. Narayanibai (Deceased) by LRs. and Others (supra) that it is a settled principle of law that 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, paragraph nos. 19 and 20 of which reads 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 [See A. Raghavamma vs. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 : (1964) 2 SCR 933 ]. 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 [See Kishori Lal vs. Chaltibai, AIR 1959 SC 504 : 1959 Supp. 1 SCR 698 : 1959 SCJ 560 ]. 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 [See Mahashoya Shosinath Ghose vs. Krishna Soondari Dasi, (1879-80) 7 IA 250: ILR (1881) 6 Cal. 381]. In Lakshman Singh Kothari vs. Smt Rup Kanwar, AIR 1961 SC 1378 : (1962) 1 SCR 477 : (1962) 2 SCJ 472 , 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. 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 vary 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 “datta homam” 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 [See Bal Gangadhar Tilak vs. Shrinivas Pandit, AIR 1915 PC 7 : (1915) 42 IA 135 : 29 IC 639]. 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 “datta homam” was necessary.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. The defendant no. 4 who is said to be the adoptive mother has no in uncertain term stated that she has not adopted the defendant no. 3. Her testimony is trustworthy and reliable. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to shake her testimony even though, she is an illiterate lady. She has filed a petition in the trial court mentioning therein that she has not filed the written statement in the suit and this fact has remained unchallenged. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the physical act of giving and taking of adoption, this Court is of the considered view that court of appeal has not committed any error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the final court of fact and law. The first substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 18. The first substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 18. Now coming to the second substantial question of law as to whether on the face of the registered deed of adoption coupled with the evidence in support thereof the Court of appeal below has committed error of law in disbelieving the adoption is concerned, Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as under: 16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption - Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. Certainly envisages a presumption of adoption having been made in compliance of the provision of the Act unless and until, it is disputed but coming the facts of the case, here the purported adoptive mother herself has stated that she has not executed the deed of adoption in token of adoption. 19. The learned first appellate court for cogent reasons has arrived at the conclusion that the adoption deed was got executed by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. The purported adoptive mother being the defendant no. 4 has disowned the adoption deed and testified to that effect in court. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the court of appeal has not committed any error of law in disbelieving the adoption on the face of the purported registered deed of adoption coupled with the evidence put forth by the parties in the record. Hence, the second substantial question of law as to whether on the face of the registered deed of adoption coupled with the evidence in support thereof, the Court of appeal below has committed error of law in disbelieving the adoption, is answered in the negative. 20. Now coming the third substantial question of law as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court can be sustained in law for non- consideration of Section 15 and 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, 21. So far as Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as under: 15. 20. Now coming the third substantial question of law as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court can be sustained in law for non- consideration of Section 15 and 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, 21. So far as Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as under: 15. Valid adoption not to be cancelled - No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth. Is concerned, an adoption which has been validly made cannot be cancelled but here in this case, though no adoption has ever taken place and only an adoption deed was registered that too by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provision of Section 15 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not applicable. 22. While discussing the second substantial question of law, this Court has already answered as to how Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 will not be a bar in view of the overwhelming evidence in the record that the said deed of adoption was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Hence, this Court answers the third substantial question of law as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court can be sustained in law for non-consideration of Section 15 and 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in the negative. 23. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. 24. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs. 25. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.