Judgment D. Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment & decree dated 17th March, 2018 and 31st March, 2018 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhenkanal in R.F.A. No.09 of 2013 (14 of 2017). Late Sulochana Panda as the Plaintiff, had filed C.S. No.318 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhenkanal for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession over the properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint with further declaration that the sale deeds in respect of Schedule-B & B-1 properties are null and void and the Respondent Nos.2 to 12 (Defendant Nos.1 to 11) have no manner of right, title and interest over the said properties with the prayer confirmation of possession of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) over Schedule-B & B-1 properties in the alternative for recovery of possession, if found to have been dispossessed. 2. Sulochana (Plaintiff) having died after disposal of the First Appeal, her legal representatives including the legal representatives of her deceased son have been substituted as Respondent No.1(a)(ii) to 1(a)(iii). 3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 4. Plaintiff's case is that she is the only child of Gunanidhi Panigrahi. The properties in suit were recorded in the name of Gunanidhi and it was the ancestral property in his hand. After the death Gunanidhi, the properties came to be recorded in the name of his wife, namely, Megha Panigrahi in the Hal Settlement Operation. The Plaintiff had married Raghunath of the same village, who died leaving behind her son Purna, who is also dead. Purna had two sons, namely, Premananda and Srinibas and a daughter, namely, Kamini. Raghunath left behind four acres of landed properties. All children of Purna are married. Since Purna had two sons, the Plaintiff thought it wise that in future, Premananda would enjoy the properties left by Raghunath whereas Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) would enjoy the properties left by Gunanidhi. The house of Gunanidhi when collapsed, his widow Megha resided in the house of the Plaintiff till her death and Purna was looking after the entire cultivation of the properties as his sons were prosecuting their studies. The house of Gunanidhi when collapsed, his widow Megha resided in the house of the Plaintiff till her death and Purna was looking after the entire cultivation of the properties as his sons were prosecuting their studies. Srinibas (Defendant No.ll), in course of time, became wayward and discontinued his study. When he reached the age of 19/20, he started taking alchohol and ganja. Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) became disobedient and started misbehaving Purna. Premananda, the other son also discontinued his study while reading in college and proceeded to Kamakhyanagar to earn his livelihood by running a betel shop. In the year 2009, he closed down his shop at Kamakhyanagar and returned to their Village-Ambapada. Taking advantage of the innocence of the Plaintiff and helpless condition of Puma, Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) terrorized the entire family for his illegal gain and wanted to enjoy the lion's share of the properties. In a bid to fulfill his evil plan, he got his name mutated in respect of the land under Khata No.260 of Village-Ambapada describing himself as the son of Gunanidhi. This mutation was done behind the back of the Plaintiff. Gunanidhi died when the Plaintiff was only seven years. Megha had never adopted Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) at any point of time. So, mutation of the land under Khata No.260 of Village-Ambapada is said to have been obtained in mischievously designed manner/way. Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) then started transferring the properties from said holding by executing sale deeds. He last transferred the property on l8.06.20l0 in favour of Hata Kishore (Defendant No.lO). The Defendant Nos.l to l0 except Biswanath (Defendant No.2) are all the illegal purchasers of the properties from out of the land under Khata No.260 Village-Ambapada. The Defendant No.2 is also an illegal purchaser of a portion of the suit property from Thaka (Defendant No.l), which he had purchased from Srinibas (Defendant No.ll). During pendency of the suit, Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) again executed a registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.l2, namely, Binaya Kumar Nayak in respect of the land under Hal Khata No.24l9/3280 measuring Ac.0.05 decimals and Plot No.2439 measuring Ac.0.l9 decimals under that very Khata No.260 of Village-Ambapada. The transaction is said to be illegal. These two plots of land are in one patch and the residential premises of Gunanidhi where he was residing till his death and thereafter his wife, namely, Megha. The transaction is said to be illegal. These two plots of land are in one patch and the residential premises of Gunanidhi where he was residing till his death and thereafter his wife, namely, Megha. The ancestral house has been demolished and the entire patch of land is under the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff as her bari land by raising seasonal crops. This patch of land is at a short distance from the matrimonial house of the Plaintiff intervened by seven houses. The Plaintiff had planted several trees of different varieties and the entire premises had been kept by her under barbed wire fencing when the ancestral pucca wall was also in place. The Defendant No.12 tried to damage the trees and erect a building over there by show of force. The Schedule-A property exclusively stood recorded in the name of Megha, the wife of Gunanidhi in the Hal Settlement Record. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the same whereas the Defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the said properties, which they had illegally purchased from Defendant No.11. The Plaintiff, being frightened by Defendant No.11, who was a rowdy man and then had an army of the illegal purchasers with him, did not desist from transferring the land. He after assaulting the family members, left the village and resided in his father-in-law's place. The Plaintiff thereafter, having gathered courage, filed the suit. 5. The Defendant No.l did not come forward to contest the suit from the beginning. 6. The Defendant No.ll contested the suit without filing the written statement. 7. The Defendant Nos.2 to 10, in their written statement, while traversing the plaint averments, have denied that the land in the suit was recorded in the name of Megha, wife of Gunanidhi in the Settlement Operation. It is further stated that the Defendant No.l has rightly obtained the mutation order and got his name recorded in the record of right. It is said that the said mutation is legal and valid. It is stated that Defendant No.ll is the adopted son of Gunanidhi. The adoption took place during the childhood days of Defendant No.ll following all the legal formalities including the giving and taking ceremony. It was within the knowledge of all concerned. It is said that the said mutation is legal and valid. It is stated that Defendant No.ll is the adopted son of Gunanidhi. The adoption took place during the childhood days of Defendant No.ll following all the legal formalities including the giving and taking ceremony. It was within the knowledge of all concerned. According to them, The Defendant No.ll has been declared as the adopted son of Megha and Gunanidhi for all purposes. It is thus said that Defendant No.ll, being the owner of the said properties, has rightly transferred those in favour of the other Defendants and as such, all those transfers are legal and valid. 8. The Defendant No.l2, in his written statement, has also denied the claim of the Plaintiff by joining with Defendant Nos.2 to l0. It is stated that the recording of the suit land in the name of Megha, in the year 1984 settlement, is valid and lawful and she was the lawful owner of the suit land. Since Defendant No.11 was in possession of the suit property, being the lawful owner, the alienation made by him in favour of Defendant No.12 is lawful and valid. The Plaintiff, being a stranger, has no locus standi to file the same. He states to have purchased the property out of Khata No.335/490 for a consideration of Rs.1,46,400/- from Defendant No.11. He has also got the land which he purchased recorded in his favour. He also claims that Defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha and all have accepted and recognized him as such. 9. The Trial Court, on the above rival pleadings, has framed as many as ten issues, which are as under:- "(i) If the suit is maintainable? (ii)Whether there is cause of action for plaintiff to file the present suit? (iii)Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (iv)Whether Srinibas Panda @ Panigrahi is the adopted son of Gunanidhi Panigrahi and Megha Panigrahi? (v)Whether the plaintiff is the only child of Gunanidhi Panigrahi and Megha Panigrahi? (vi)Whether the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the schedule-A land under Khata No.260 of mouza- Ambapada can be declared? (vii)Whether the series of sale deeds as mentioned in schedule-B and B/l of the plaint can be declared null and void? (viii)Whether the defendants No.l to l0 and l2 had any manner of right, title and interest over the schedule-B and B/l properties? (vii)Whether the series of sale deeds as mentioned in schedule-B and B/l of the plaint can be declared null and void? (viii)Whether the defendants No.l to l0 and l2 had any manner of right, title and interest over the schedule-B and B/l properties? (ix)Whether the plaintiff has possession over the schedule-B and B/l land and if so, their possession be confirmed? (x) To what other relief/s, the plaintiff is entitled?' 10. Proceeding to answer issue No.(iv) whether Srinibas Panda @ Pani (Defendant No.ll) is the adopted son of Plaintiff, upon examination of the evidence and their analysis as well as evaluation, the Trial Court has found that those are not at all sufficient to hold that Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) is the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha, being so adopted as required for the purpose. Next proceeding to answer issue No.(iv), having examined the evidence on record, in the backdrop of the pleadings, the Plaintiff's status, as claimed to be the only child of Gunanidhi and Megha, has been accepted. With such finding, the Trial Court has found the Plaintiff to be having the right, title and interest over the landed properties under Khata No.260 of Village- Ambapada and, therefore, to be in possession of the land under Schedule-B and B-l properties. Then the other issues as to the validity of the sale deeds executed by Defendant No.ll in respect of the properties in Schedule-B and B-1 of the plaint has been answered in the affirmative. 11. The suit was accordingly decreed by the following order:- 'The suit be and the same is decreed on contest against defendants No.2 to 12 and exparte against defendant No.1. But there is no order as to cost looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the suit. The right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the schedule-A property under Khata No.260 of mouza Ambapada is hereby declared. It is further declared that D-11 has got no manner or right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule-B as executed by D-11 in favour of D-1, 3 to 10 and 12 and schedule-B/1 showing the registration of sale deed by D-1 in favour of D-2 are declared as null and void. It is further declared that defendant No.1 to 10 and 12 had not acquired any manner of right, title and interest over the schedule-B and B/1 land. It is further declared that defendant No.1 to 10 and 12 had not acquired any manner of right, title and interest over the schedule-B and B/1 land. The possession of the plaintiff described in Schedule-B and B/1 is hereby confirmed and it be recovered from all the vendees of defendant No.11.' 12. The Defendant No.12, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, had carried an Appeal under section 96 of the Code. The First Appellate Court, at its level appears to have independently appreciated the evidence in entirety and finally, having come to a conclusion that the Trial court has rightly returned the answers to all those contentious issues, the Appeal has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of said Defendant No.12. It also be noted here that except Defendant No.12, none-else filed the First Appeal under section-96 of the Code challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 13. The present Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial questions of law:- '(i) Whether challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court being not made by the Defendant No.11 whose claim of adoption has been rejected; Defendant no.12 who is a lispendense purchaser of property from Defendant No.11 could have challenged the same as the person aggrieved as against that claim of status of the Plaintiff? ; (ii) Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below that Srinibas (Defendant No.11) is not the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha, who are his maternal grand-parents, is the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence.' 14. Mr. Tushar Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant (Defendant) submitted that the Courts below, having not properly appreciated the evidence let in by the Defendants on the question of adoption of Defendant No.11 by Megha, the wife of Gunanidhi, have arrived at a completely erroneous conclusion in negating the claim of adoption of Defendant No.11 as projected. He further submitted that the Defendant No.12, being the purchaser of the property, i.e., homestead land including the ancestral pucca well, from Defendant No.ll, has come to be impleaded as a party to the suit during its pendency and, therefore, when he is directly suffering under the decree passed by the Courts below, he has the right of Appeal. He further submitted that the Defendant No.12, being the purchaser of the property, i.e., homestead land including the ancestral pucca well, from Defendant No.ll, has come to be impleaded as a party to the suit during its pendency and, therefore, when he is directly suffering under the decree passed by the Courts below, he has the right of Appeal. He, in support of the adoption, having invited the attention of the Court to the evidence on record and the rival pleadings, urged that the Courts below have gone wrong in concluding against the adoption. 15. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.l(a)(ii) to l(a)(iii) submitted that this Appellant (Defendant No.l2) being a lispendense purchaser coming to be arraigned during the suit, has no right to question the finding as to the status of the Defendant No.ll, who is not coming forward to question the same and when that finding that he is not the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha has attained finality as against him, the Defendant No.2 cannot maintain the Appeal. 16. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the plaint averments, rival pleadings and the evidence both oral and documentary let in the parties. 17. The focal point of this litigation between the parties is the adoption of Srinibas (Defendant No.ll) by Megha wife of Gunanidhi Panigrahi. This Defendant No.l2 has stated that Defendant No.ll is a stranger to the suit land. It is his case that he is the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha and the adoption had duly taken place. It is said that the Defendant No.ll was taken in adoption by Megha, wife of Gunanidhi by observing all the formalities. He has, however, deposed that the Plaintiff is his natural grandmother and one Premananda Panda is his natural brother. He however is not in a position to state the name of father of the Plaintiff. The very case of Defendant No.ll is that he had been adopted by his great grandmother. The Courts below, having discussed the evidence let in by the Defendant No.ll both oral and documentary in extentio have ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the Defendant No.ll has utterly failed to prove his status as the adopted son of Megha. The very case of Defendant No.ll is that he had been adopted by his great grandmother. The Courts below, having discussed the evidence let in by the Defendant No.ll both oral and documentary in extentio have ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the Defendant No.ll has utterly failed to prove his status as the adopted son of Megha. As per the evidence of the Plaintiff, her father Gunanidhi died when she was seven years old and the Defendant No.ll has stated his age to be twenty-eight years in the year 20l2 when he deposed in Court. Therefore, the year of birth of Defendant No.ll approximately taken to be l984 and then taking into account all other evidence on record, the Courts below appear to have decided the issue of adoption against Defendant No.ll and accordingly the purchase made by Defendant No.l2 has been relegated as valueless. 18. At this juncture, it be stated that after the claim of adoption of Defendant No.ll, which had been projected by all the Defendants was negated by the Trial Court, upon detail discussion of evidence and their evaluation at its level; the Defendant No.ll whose status as claimed was thus rejected, did not challenge the said finding by carrying an Appeal even though basing upon that finding, the suit of the Plaintiff stood decreed. The First Appeal was filed by Defendant No.l2, who is a lis-pendens purchaser. In that Appeal, the Defendant No.l2 did not file any Cross-Appeal or Cross-Objection. After the First Appellate Court has concurred with the views of the Trial Court and refused to interfere with the finding that the Defendant No.ll is not the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in decreeing the suit filed by the Plaintiff, this Second Appeal has also been preferred by the Defendant No.l2, who is the lis-pendens purchaser of the property from Defendant No.ll. The Courts below, having affirmed the finding on the issue of adoption negating the claim of Defendant No.ll to be the adopted son of Gunanidhi and Megha, this lis-pendens purchaser (Defendant No.ll), in my considered view, has no locus standi to call in question, the said finding on the basis of which the result of the suit has stood since when he purchased the property, he was aware or presumed to be knowing that the status of his Vendor, Defendant No.ll is facing opposition and is the core issue in the suit whose answer would not only decide the fate of the transaction in his favour but also the fate of the Defendant No.ll vis-a-vis other property of Megha. Furthermore, when under the circumstance, this Defendant no.12 came to the litigation arena being attracted by the same and thus knew well that her purchase was subjected to the result of the lis; he being not even a necessary party to the suit has no right of appeal like the Defendant No.11. That apart, besides purchased property of Defendant No.12, other properties are also the subject matter of the suit. Now so far as those other properties, the finding against adoption would guide as there is no challenge from the side of the Defendant No.11 and thus the said finding having in that way attained finality, that is no more open to be questioned at the behest of this Defendant No.12, the lis-pendens purchaser. The first substantial questions of law, having been answered as above, there arises no further necessity to proceed to search the answer to the next substantial question of law as it would practically serve no purpose for the present lis. 19. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. The judgment & decree dated 17th March, 2018 and 31st March, 2018 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhenkanal in R.F.A. No.09 of 2013 are hereby confirmed.