JUDGMENT : 1. This is a second appeal by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 2. Sri.S.Basappa, claiming to be the adopted son of Savandaiah, filed a suit seeking for a declaration that he was the owner and in possession of the suit properties. He also sought for a declaration that the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 executed by Savandaiah in favour of Gangamma—defendant No.1 and his mother—Bhadramma was null and void. He also sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 07.12.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 was null and void, apart from seeking the relief of permanent injunction. 3. The case put forth by the plaintiff was that Savandaiah, who had three daughters namely Gangamma, Bhadramma and Kalamma, had taken the plaintiff in adoption when he was very young, duly observing all the formalities of adoption. He stated that during the life-time of his adoptive father, Savandaiah, he was in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and after his father’s death, he had continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. He stated that, of the three daughters of Savandaiah, Bhadramma (his mother) and Kalamma were no more. He stated that the entries in the revenue records and the school certificate established that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah and in fact, in the caveat filed by defendant No.1, he had been described as being the son of Savandaiah and thus, his adoption had been beyond dispute. 4. He admitted that defendant No.1—Gangamma had filed a suit in O.S. No.197 of 1981 seeking for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit schedule properties on the basis of the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 and the said suit was decreed and the appeal filed by him in R.A. No.81 of 2001 was also dismissed. 5. He also admitted that as against the dismissal of his appeal, R.A. No 81 of 2001, he had preferred a second appeal before this Court in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2006, but the same was also dismissed, however, with an observation that it will be open for him to establish the factum of his adoption during the appropriate proceedings by tendering appropriate evidence and if such a question arose for consideration in such proceedings, the same would have to be considered independent of the findings recorded in O.S. No.197 of 1981. He, therefore, submitted that the question of his adoption had been left open and he would be entitled to establish that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah. He stated that, if he was the adopted son of Savandaiah, obviously, Savandaiah could not have gifted the entire suit properties to defendant No.1 and his mother and to that extent, the gift deed would not be binding upon him. 6. This suit was resisted by Gangamma—his maternal aunt. She stated that her title in respect of the suit properties had been challenged by the plaintiff and she therefore was constrained to file O.S. No.197 of 1981 and the said suit was decreed and the decree was confirmed right up to this Court in R.S.A. No.1003 of 2006 and thus, the fact that she was the owner of the suit properties was beyond dispute and could not be re-agitated indirectly. 7. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 also filed written statement, denying the assertions of the plaintiff. They have stated that the plaintiff was filing suit after the suit unnecessarily and he had no claim over the suit properties which belonged to Savandaiah, who had gifted in its entirety to two of his granddaughters Bhadramma and Gangamma. 8. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah and that after the death of Savandaiah, by virtue of the adoption, he became the absolute owner of the suit properties. The Trial Court also held that the gift deed dated 02.09.1957 gifting the properties in favour of Bhadramma and Gangamma were proved. The Trial Court, accordingly, dismissed the suit. 9. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the Appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court could not be found fault with and it had committed no error in holding that the plaintiff had not proved his case. The Appellate Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. 10. It is against these concurrent findings, the present appeal has been preferred. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.G.R.Anantharam, contended that there was abundant evidence on record which would clearly establish that the plaintiff was indeed the son of Savandaiah. The Appellate Court, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. 10. It is against these concurrent findings, the present appeal has been preferred. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.G.R.Anantharam, contended that there was abundant evidence on record which would clearly establish that the plaintiff was indeed the son of Savandaiah. He sought to rely upon the R.T.C. extracts to indicate that the plaintiff had been adopted by Savandaiah and it is for that reason, his name had been found in the revenue records. 12. In a suit in which a party seeks to prove a relationship with another, Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would come into play. In order to establish a relationship, the opinion of a person who has special means of knowledge about the relationship would become a relevant fact. In the instant case, though the plaintiff contended that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah, he did not adduce the evidence of any credible person to establish this relationship. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff was of PW-2 and PW-3. 13. PW-2 was his wife’s sister’s husband, who was also of the same age as that of the plaintiff. Obviously, PW-2 being of the same age, cannot possibly be aware of the adoption of the plaintiff by Savandaiah and that too when the adoption was alleged to have been made when the plaintiff was about six or seven years old. 14. The other witness i.e., PW-3, merely stated he was a relative of Savandaiah without specifying as to in what manner he was related to Savandaiah. Even PW-3 was only aged about eighty years and he would be more or less the same age of the plaintiff and would not have any special knowledge of the adoption. It is therefore, clear that there was no oral evidence indicating the factum of adoption of the plaintiff by Savandaiah. 15. It has to be noticed here that none of the plaintiff’s sisters nor defendant Nos.3 to 6 supported the plea of the plaintiff that he had been adopted by Savandaiah. In the absence of any credible evidence to indicate that the plaintiff had been adopted by Savandaiah, both the Courts were absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah. In the absence of any credible evidence to indicate that the plaintiff had been adopted by Savandaiah, both the Courts were absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah. Reliance placed upon the voters’ list cannot also be of any consequence, since an entry in the voter’s list that he was the son of Savandaiah cannot establish the adoption. 16. Having regard to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, in my view, both the Courts were justified in holding, on appreciation of the evidence, that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the adopted son of Savandaiah. 17. In my view, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.