JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. A very peculiar, but though an interesting question, which emerges for consideration in this Appeal from Order, which has been preferred under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the appellant herein, is while challenging the part of the judgment and orders dated 25th August 2015 and 26th August 2015, which had been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Almora, while deciding the Probate Application No. 9 of 2013, filed by respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925, for the grant of probate of the estates of late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma, on the basis of an alleged Will dated 2nd October 1989, which was an unregistered document, claimed to have been executed in favour of respondent No. 2. 2. In case, if the probate application itself, which was instituted on 21st October 2013, before the Court below, is taken into consideration, in fact, the applicant thereto, i.e. responder No. 2 herein, had contended for issuing of a probate in her favour in relation to the estates of late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma, which was based upon the Will dated 2nd October 1989. But, while raising pleading pertaining to the claim of the estate of late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma based upon an unregistered Will, a very strange pleading has been taken in para 3 of the probate application under Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act, to the effect that the testator of the Will i.e. late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma, who had a right over the property, which was admittedly executed in his favour under the Government Grant Act, in relation to the land lying in khasra No. 63M, having an area of 11870 i.e. 12/16 nali, which is said to have been executed in favour of late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma; on the basis of the provisions of Government Grant Act, wherein a leasehold right was alleged to have been executed in his favour for a period of 30 years but, the adoption deed which was executed in favour of the present appellant. In fact, there was no specific contention ever raised for the adoption deed paper No. 31 (ka), which was admittedly registered on 23rd November 1992 in favour of the present appellant. 3. In fact, there was no specific contention ever raised for the adoption deed paper No. 31 (ka), which was admittedly registered on 23rd November 1992 in favour of the present appellant. 3. The probate proceedings were carried on merits and the parties led their respective evidences and ultimately, the probate application, which was registered as Case No. 9 of 2013, Kamla Goswami Vs. Shivendra Goswami and Another, wherein she has sought a probate of the Will and which was on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 12th October 1989, in relation to the property, already detailed hereinabove, which was the subject matter of Government Grant Act being Act No. 15 of 1895, the learned Court of Additional District Judge, Almora, vide its judgment dated 25th August 2015, had rejected the probate application, preferred by respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act of 1925. 4. It is an admitted position, that the probate, which was claimed by respondent No. 2 herein, was on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 2nd October 1989, which stood rejected the said order of rejection had attained finality, and it has not been ever put to challenge by respondent No. 2, in any other proceedings before the competent superior Court of law. Hence, so far as the findings recorded for devolvement of right on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 2nd October 1989, since it was the matter, which was decided on merits as against respondent No. 2, she may not have any grievances, so far it relates to a challenge given to the findings recorded on issue No. 2, in relation to the present appellant pertaining to the adoption deed paper No. 31 (ka), which was said to have been executed on 23rd November 1992, by late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma in favour of the present appellant. 5. The sole grievances of the present appellant in the present Appeal from Order is, qua the findings which had been recorded in relation to the issue Nos. 2 and 4. 6. In order to answer the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the scrutinisation of the reasoning assigned on issue No. 2 becomes irrelevant. 5. The sole grievances of the present appellant in the present Appeal from Order is, qua the findings which had been recorded in relation to the issue Nos. 2 and 4. 6. In order to answer the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the scrutinisation of the reasoning assigned on issue No. 2 becomes irrelevant. In fact, if the observations, which has been made in para 22 of the judgment of probate, as rendered on 25th August 2015 if that is taken into consideration, it was rendered after appreciation of evidence, that the learned Court of Additional District Judge, has come to a conclusion, that on the examination of the witnesses in support of the respective contentions pertaining to the registered adoption deed of 23rd November 1992, the Court has observed that in support of the establishment of the adoption deed, to be a valid document, the opposite party No. 1, i.e. the appellant herein in the present Appeal from Order, in fact, has produced the oral testimony of Mr. Rinku Bisht, the Sub-registrar, Almora, who was examined by the Court, and in support of his contention, he has supported the execution of the adoption deed paper No. 31 (ka), as to be true, genuine and a valid document which was proved to have been validly executed. 7. In that eventuality, the valid execution of the adoption deed dated 23rd November 1992, which was registered on 24th November 1992, before the Sub-registrar, and its valid execution by late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma, stood established and proved, even as per the findings which had been recorded on issue No. 2. But, rather taking a contrary stand, despite the fact that the valid execution of the adoption deed and having observed that prior to the execution of the adoption deed all the codal rituals were duly adhered to, the Court has taken a converse observation while making observations in para 24; whereby the learned Court below, and that too, without any rational basis based on any evidence to the contrary and without any rational reasons have recorded a finding, that the opposite party No. 1 to the proceedings to the probate, i.e. appellant herein, had failed to establish his adoption and the execution or the registration deed of adoption as registered on 23rd November 1992 paper No. 31 (ka). 8. 8. This Court is of the view, that apparently the findings, which had been recorded while deciding issue No. 2 runs, in contravention to one another, particularly when the execution of the adoption deed, being paper No. 31 (ka) was established by the appellant by producing the oral testimony of Mr. Rinku Bisht, the Sub-registrar, who admitted the fact of valid execution of a document, there was no other material, as such, or much credible material on record, on the basis of which, the learned Court below could have remarked that the appellant, has failed to prove that the adoption deed was made in his favour in accordance with the valid recognised ceremonies, as observed in para 24 of its judgment. 9. There is another reason, why to, not to accept the findings which had been recorded in para 24, apart from the fact that it is in contradiction to para 22 of the judgment, the reference or the consideration or the adoption deed of 23rd November to 1992, in the judgment of probate was in fact, an unnecessary and uncalled for exercise which was resorted to by the respondents and that too, in a proceedings under Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act, where exclusively an applicant, who seeks a probate based upon a Will, which was said or claimed to have been executed in her favour by the testator, which has not been otherwise proved to have been validly executed and which was apparently not accepted to have been executed, resulted into failure of proceedings of probate by the judgment rendered by the Court below. 10. This Court is of the view, that there was no occasion or much valid reasons too for the learned Additional District Judge, that while scrutinizing the propriety of the Will dated 2nd October 1989, and particularly, when the said claim was turned down by the judgment dated 25th August 2015, to have ventured in exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 217, to decide the propriety of a registered adoption deed by making observations and that too, being perverse in nature because it was not based upon any scrutinisation of evidence or its prior appreciation before holding that the adoption was bad because of non performance of ceremonies, which were required to be adhered to, prior to the adoption. 11. 11. This finding is contrary and perverse too, to the finding which has been recorded in para 22 particularly, when the execution of the deed in question stood established and proved by evidence on record. There was no occasion for the learned Court below and that too, without any evidence to take a contrary view and merely on the pretext, that the formal rituals were not followed, this itself will not mitigate the registered adoption deed of 23rd October 1992, the execution of which stood established by evidence and when it remained unchallenged. 12. In that view of the matter and particularly, the observations which had been made in para 22, this Court is of the view, that the findings recorded while deciding issue No. 2, in relation to the adoption deed being paper No. 31 (ka) dated 23rd November 1992, being perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, cannot be sustained. As such, whatsoever finding which has been recorded while deciding issue No. 2, in relation to the registered adoption deed of the appellant paper No. 31 (ka), is hereby struck down and quashed, the observations made therein pertaining to the adoption deed, will not be read in contrary to his interest of the appellant in any other collateral proceedings based on the findings recorded on issue No. 2, if any it is required to be resorted to by the appellant for determination of his claim based upon the registered adoption deed dated 23rd November, 1992 and this observation is being particularly made by this Court consciously bearing the fact in mind, that when the probate of the respondent No. 2 has been rejected by the Court, which has not been made to be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny before any superior court, there cannot be an interse claim between the appellant and respondent No. 2 anymore, qua the estates of late Mr. Babu Ram Sharma. 13. In that eventuality, the Appeal from Order is allowed. The observations made pertaining to the adoption deed on issue No. 2, would stand quashed.