JUDGMENT : ANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 28.05.2002 passed in Title Appeal No. 04 of 1999 by the learned District Judge, Dumka allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment dated 31.03.1999 passed in Title Suit No. 28/1995 by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Dumka. 3. The appellants/plaintiffs have instituted suit for declaration that the defendant no. 1 is not the adopted son of Ramni Tatwain and that the registered deed of adoption No. 194/1989 is void abinitio, in operative and fit to be cancelled. Apart from that relief for cost has been sought. The said suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 28 of 1995 which was decided by judgment dated 31.03.1999 and decree signed on 13.04.1999 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Aggrieved with that the respondents/defendants preferred Title Appeal No. 04 of 1999 which was decided on 28.05.2002 whereby the learned appellate court allowed the title appeal with costs and reversed the judgment dated 31.03.1999/decree signed on 13.04.1999 by the learned trial court. Aggrieved with that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal. 4. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that Debi Tatwa had two sons Sahru Mehtar and Kishan Mehtar. Sahru had five sons, namely, Bishni Bhim, Surju, Kailu and Bhupati. Plaintiff no. 2 Karelee is the wife of Bhisu Mahto who is dead now. Bhim Bhupati and Surju died issueless. Kailu had two daughter Pateli Debi and Ramnee Debi. Plaintiff no. 1 is son of Patali. Ramni died issueless. According to plaintiff, Kishan Mehtar died before Settlement leaving his widow Rebati who has been recorded in respect of Kishan Mehtar's property appertaining to Jamabandi No. 31.Name of Sahru Mahtar was recorded with respect to Jamabandi no. 34. After the death of Rebati, Saharu, being the surviving brother of Kishan, inherited this lands of jamabandi no. 31. Further case is that Ramni died issueless on 6.8.95. Though last rites and shradh of Ramnee was performed by plaintiff no. 1, yet, on the said date, (6-8-95) these defendants wanted to cremate the dead body of Ramnee on the plea of adoption and produced a deed of adoption bearing no. 31. Further case is that Ramni died issueless on 6.8.95. Though last rites and shradh of Ramnee was performed by plaintiff no. 1, yet, on the said date, (6-8-95) these defendants wanted to cremate the dead body of Ramnee on the plea of adoption and produced a deed of adoption bearing no. 194/89 alleged to have been executed by Late Ramnee. The plaintiffs have questioned the factum of adoption and denied the validity of deed. They alleged that defendant no. 2 (Basuki Mandal ) is man of dubious character, sophisticated and influential Mahajan of the village who had greedy eye over sophisticated the property of Ramni and with that intent he frequently visited the house of Ramnee and gained confidence and projected himself and her well wishers and assured to help and protect her interest as Ramnee had some dispute with her sister’s son in the share and enjoyment of produce out of the property inherited from her father Late Kailu Tatwa. It is apprehended that defendant no. 2 practised undue influence and fraud on Ramnee with a view to get L.T.I. purporting to execute adoption by alleging that she had adopted defen-dant no. 1 as son on 7-5-82. As a matter of fact, no ceremony of giving and taking took place. The defendants are by castes Gwala and according to local custom, Ramnee could not even contemplated to adopt a child of different caste. The story of adoption is false and fabricated. It is then alleged that defendant no. 1 was aged about 17 years on 7-5-82 and he has not been transferred from the family of natural parents to the family of adoptive mother. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present suit was filed for declaration hereinabove specified. 5. The case of respondents/defendants is that the claim by filing one set of W.S. they denied to have practiced fraud upon Ramnee Tatwain in the manner suggested by the plaintiff in the plaint and it was alleged that the plaintiffs having full knowledge since 1982 that Ramnee had adopted defendant no. 1, but intentionally did not filed suit during her life time obviously because the plaintiffs always used to torture her and not allowing her to share the crop and as such, Ramnee having found herself helpless, adopted the defendant no. 1 as her son on 7-5-82 after performing all religious ceremony and, that defendant no. 1, but intentionally did not filed suit during her life time obviously because the plaintiffs always used to torture her and not allowing her to share the crop and as such, Ramnee having found herself helpless, adopted the defendant no. 1 as her son on 7-5-82 after performing all religious ceremony and, that defendant no. 1 has been treated as the son of Ramnee and he is called Rameshwar Tantee. It is then the case that soon after getting knowledge of adoption, the plaintiffs started torturing Ramni Debi and was compelled to live separately. She then constructed a house over a piece of land of Kaila Layak. She fell ill and died on 6.8.95. Her last rites and Shradh was performed by defendant no. 1. It is claimed that plaintiff never performed the shradh nor they ever objected to creamation of dead body of Ramnee. No fraud was played in executing the deed of adoption. With these averments, prayer is for dismissal of suit. 6. By order dated 18.06.2003 this second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in respect of Exhibit B/4 was sufficient for holding the adoption valid in all respect.” 7. Mr. Rajiva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that finding of the learned trial court that the ceremony of giving and taking could not be proved by cogent evidence has been reversed by the learned appellate court without considering and discussing the evidence on record and without assigning any cogent reason. He further submits that D.W.1 Basuki Mandal categorically stated in his deposition in para-13 that neither he called his priest nor Ramni called her priest, D.W. further stated in para-13 that Sanjay Mishra is his priest for the last 20 years but he did not call him. He further submits that D.Ws. evidence itself proved that adoption was not valid and the learned appellate court without discussing the material on record has reversed the finding of the learned trial court. He further submits that D.Ws. evidence itself proved that adoption was not valid and the learned appellate court without discussing the material on record has reversed the finding of the learned trial court. According to him relying only on the basis of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 the learned appellate court proceeded to decide the appeal which is against the mandate of law and in that view of the matter law point framed by this court may be answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. 8. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned trial court failed to take into consideration Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and weakness of the witness of the respondents/defendants will not come to rescue the appellants/plaintiffs, when the appellants/plaintiffs themselves failed to prove their case. He submits that learned appellate court has rightly considered the evidences as well as documents and thereafter has proceeded to decide the case in the light of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. He further submits that in para-19 of the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 pleading was there and the reason of execution of Exhibit B/4. He further submits that learned appellate court has taken into consideration of the fact that plaintiffs have also admitted that Ramnee put her L.T.I. on Exhibit B/4 in that view of the matter execution of Exhibit B/4 is not in dispute which is adoptive deed. On these grounds he submits that law point framed by this may be answered in favour of the respondents/defendants. There is no illegality in the judgment of learned appellate court and the learned appellate court has rightly reversed the finding of the learned trial court. 9. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through L.C.R and the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court and finds that the learned trial court has framed five issues to decide the suit. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No. VI whether adoption on deed no. 194/89 is valid, genuine and operative or not, the learned trial court found that statement of witness leaves no room of doubt that in fact no ceremony of giving and taking ever took place. The learned trial court while deciding the issue No. VI whether adoption on deed no. 194/89 is valid, genuine and operative or not, the learned trial court found that statement of witness leaves no room of doubt that in fact no ceremony of giving and taking ever took place. D.W. 4 statement was taken into consideration by the learned trial court and the court found that he did not attend the function of adoption however he candidly claimed that he had participated in shradh ceremony of Ramnee which was performed by Rameshwar Tantee. The Court held that if he is family barbar of Ramni he could have knew about other details of her family. He has accepted that he knew nothing about the family of Ramnee. He was not knowing as to the parentage of Ram Lakhan. He had not attended shradh of Ramnee. He has not seen the house of Karilee. He was not knowing even the house of Basuki. Considering all these statements, learned trial court found that he is quite stranger and deliberately brought by defendant for the sake of counting the numbers. Learned trial court further held that natural mother has not been examined in this case. D.W.1 has admitted in his evidence in para 11 that his son had studied upto 5th class. D.W.2 admitted that Lakhan is aged about 30 years. In para 4 he admitted that Ram Lakhan was studying in High School. Considering all these aspects the learned trial court has held that the deed is forge and fabricated. 10. The learned appellate court held that in view of Evidence Act burden is on the person who is alleging fraud to prove the fraud and accordingly it was upon the plaintiffs/appellants to prove that the defendants committed fraud in creating executing the deed of adoption (Ext. B/4). It is an admitted fact that there were strained relation between Ramnee Devi in her life time with the plaintiffs/appellants and their ancestors. Considering this aspect of the matter the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and their ancestors would not have got opportunity to know what was being done by Ramnee Devi particularly about the adoption of D.W.1 by Ramni Devi. The appellate court held that the Ramni Devi must have had concealed the adoption of defendant no. The appellate court held that the Ramni Devi must have had concealed the adoption of defendant no. 1 by her from the plaintiffs and their ancestors for few beginning years because plaintiffs were the interested persons to oppose the adoption by Ramni Devi of any one. The learned appellate court further held that once registered deed of adoption is there the case is required to be decided in the light of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and further discussed the evidences of D.W.1 and D.W.2 as well as Exhibit B/4 and in para 19 of the written statement of the defendants and considering all these aspects the learned appellate court came to the conclusion that execution of exhibit B/4 which is adoption is valid one. The L.T.I. of Ramnee on Ext. B/4 was not denied by the plaintiffs/appellants and in that view of the matter the execution of Exhibit B/4 was not in dispute. The learned appellate court found that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove Exhibit B/4 as false and forged documents and further held that the defendant no. 1 was adopted legally by Ramni Devi and defendant no. 4 was legally adopted son of late Ramni Devi. By the cogent reason the learned appellate court has held that the suit was barred by limitation in Para 43 onwards. 11. In view of the discussions made by the learned appellate court as has been discussed hereinabove it transpires that it has been proved that there was strained relationship between Ramnee Devi and the plaintiffs/appellants. The L.T.I. of Ramni on Exhibit B/4 was admitted by the plaintiffs/appellants. It is settled law that when a person claiming anything on the pleading onus lies upon him to prove the case. The weakness of the witness of the defendants will not rescue the person who is claiming in the suit of any prayer in the light of Section 102 of the Evidence Act and this aspect of the matter has been recently considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Debbarma (Dead) through Legal Representative vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarama and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 19 wherein Para 31 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “31. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies on the party who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief. This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule ‘A’ property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed. Thus, the impugned judgment by the High Court had rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the High Court that the suit should be dismissed. We clarify that we have not interfered or set aside any observations of the High Court in re the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, or defendants’ claim etc. Notably, M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited is not a party to the present proceedings.” 12. Non examination of the adoptive mother, deceased mother is not fatal in deciding the case if it is proved by way of other evidence. Notably, M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited is not a party to the present proceedings.” 12. Non examination of the adoptive mother, deceased mother is not fatal in deciding the case if it is proved by way of other evidence. It is settled law that it is quality and not quantity of evidence that is relevant. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 was subject matter in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. and Another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97 wherein Para 38 to 40 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “38. Admittedly, before the trial commenced, Smt Laxmibai had died. The other witnesses who entered the witness box however proved the adoption ceremony and adoption deed. Smt Gopikabai was not examined. Thus, the question that arises is: Whether the court has to weigh or count the evidence and also whether a deposition of a witness is to be doubted merely on the ground that the witness happened to be related to the plaintiff? 39. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Where the law requires the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that the number of witnesses produced do not carry any weight. [Vide Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri. L.J. 1000; Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251 ; Sunil Kumar vs. State (Govt. [Vide Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri. L.J. 1000; Jagdish Prasad vs. State of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251 ; Sunil Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055 : AIR 2004 SC 552 ; Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 773 : AIR 2007 SC Supp 100; Kunju vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 2 SCC 151 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 331 : AIR 2008 SC 1381 ; Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 150 : AIR 2010 SC 3638 ; Mahesh v. State of M.P. (2011) 9 SCC 626 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 783 and Kishan Chand vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 502 : JT (2013) 1 SC 222]. 40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. [See Khem Chand vs. State of H.P. 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226 , State of U.P. vs. Nahar Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328 , Rajinder Pershad vs. Darshana Devi, (2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207 and Sunil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 : AIR 2005 SC 1096 ].” 13. In view of reasons and analysis the Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the learned appellate court is well founded judgment and law point framed by this Court is answered to the effect that presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in respect of Exhibit B/4 was sufficient for holding the adoption valid in the light of above discussions as the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to prove that the Exhibit B/4 was not carrying L.T.I. of Ramnee Devi rather that has been admitted as discussed hereinabove. The law point is answered accordingly. This second appeal is dismissed. 14. Let L.C.R. be transmitted back to the concerned court forthwith.