JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah and Mr. Rishabh Kumar, the learned vice counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order/ judgment dated 30.08.2012 (decree signed on 17.09.2012) passed by learned District Judge-I, Dumka in Title Appeal No.10 of 1998 whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the judgment dated 19.02.1997 (decree signed on 09.07.1998) passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Dumka in Title Suit No.37 of 1988. 3. Title Suit No.37 of 1988 has been instituted by the appellant/ plaintiff for declaration of the adoption of defendant no.1 was not valid and the registered deed dated 26.06.1969 was fraudulent, illegal, invalid and inoperative. The prayer of the cost of the suit was also prayed. 4. The learned trial court by the judgment dated 19.02.1997 after discussing the evidence on record has been pleased to dismiss the suit and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff has filed the Title Appeal No.10 of 1998 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 30.08.2012 by the learned District Judge-I, Dumka and affirming the judgment of the learned trial court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the said judgment, the appellants have filed the present second appeal. 5. It appears from the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, the plaintiff has instituted the suit alleging therein that: The case of the plaintiffs as recorded in the plaint in the learned court below in brief is that the plaintiff and defendants are Hindus and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The land of J.B.No.43 of Mouza: Saraiyahat is recorded in Gantzer’s “Purcha” in the name of Tilka Osta-grand father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the said land by inheritance and he is paying rent for the same and the defendants are outsider and have no concern with the recorded tenant Tilak Osta. Further case of the plaintiff is that the recorded tenant Tilak Osta had three sons namely Supari Osta, Ghoghan Osta and Likhar Osta. Supari Osta has got a son namely Mohan Osta (Plaintiff) and two others Ghoghan and Supari Osta died issueless. Further case of the plaintiff is that the recorded tenant Tilak Osta had three sons namely Supari Osta, Ghoghan Osta and Likhar Osta. Supari Osta has got a son namely Mohan Osta (Plaintiff) and two others Ghoghan and Supari Osta died issueless. Ghoghan Osta was a man of un-sound mind and he died twenty years ago in the condition of un-soundness. The plaintiff Mohan Osta came to know at the time of "Bujharat" at Tasdique Camp at Hansdiha in year 1988 about registered deed of adoption bearing No: 962 dated: 28.06.1969 when the defendants falsely claimed over the said land of Tilak Osta on the basis of the alleged deed of adoption. So, cause of action arosed to the plaintiff on 09.08.1988 at Tasdique camp Hansdiha when he knew regarding false deed of adoption. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants No: 2 & 3 brought Ghoghan Osta- uncle of plaintiff on 26.06.1969 in the condition of un-soundness of mind at Dumka and without explaining the fact and taking consent, a false registered deed of adoption bearing No: 962 dated: 26.06.1969 was executed by Ghoghan Osta and the contents of the said deed was neither read over nor explained to him. The defendant No: 2 & 3 brought Ghoghan Osta at Registry Office, Dumka and by false representing to Ghoghan Osta, the said deed was executed in favour of defendant No: 1. Ghoghan Osta had not taken adoption to defendant No: 1 on 02.05.1969 or any other day in his life time. There was no any ceremony of giving and taking of adoption at village: Saraiyahat or any place in any time. The recital in the alleged registered deed of adoption regarding ceremony of "Katha Puja" and giving and taking are false and out of imagination. No any "Katha Puja" or any ceremony performed by Ghoghan Osta regarding the alleged adoption. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No: 1 is not an adopted son of Ghoghan Osta and there was no necessity to take adoption by Ghoghan Osta when his brother's son Mohan Osta is alive and when Ghoghan Osta was of un-sound mind. The plaintiff has performed "Mukhagani" and "Saradh" ceremony of "Bhoj-Bhat" of Ghoghan Osta on his death. The plaintiff has performed "Mukhagani" and "Saradh" ceremony of "Bhoj-Bhat" of Ghoghan Osta on his death. The defendant No: 1 never reside with Ghoghan Osta and further his name has not been changed and he is known as Panchu Osta up till now and further he is residing with his natural parents at Dhoni. There is no any single witness of Saraiyahat but, the witness of the deed is of different village and the witness Lukman Mian has not given L.T.I. and signature and has not identified to Ghoghan Osta. Hence, the plaintiff prayed to declare the said deed of adoption false, illegal, invalid and in-operative in law and the defendant No: 1 is not legally adopted son of Ghoghan Osta. 6. The case of the defendants is that the defendants appeared and filed their written statement before the learned Court below. The defendants brought some legal objections in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable and barred by law of limitation and further hit by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The plaintiff has got no valid cause of action for the present suit. Further the defendants have brought also factual objections. It is admitted by the defendants that the land of J.B. No: 43 of Mouza Saraiyahat is recorded in the name of Tilak Osta, but it is false to say that the plaintiff alone has inherited all the land recorded in the name of Tilak Osta, rather the defendant No: 1 being adopted son of Ghoghan Osta has inherited the property and is in possession and paying rent. It is also false to say that the defendants are outsider and has no concerned with the recorded tenant. The defendant No: 2 & 3 are natural parents of defendant No: 1 and the defendant No: 1 is adopted son of Ghoghan Osta. The genealogy given in the plaint is in complete and the plaintiff purposely omitted to show the name of Painter Osta and his descendent. It is admitted fact that Supari Osta got a son-plaintiff and Likhar Osta died issue-less and Ghoghan Osta died leaving the defendant No: 1 Panchu Osta @ Nilkanth Osta as his adopted son. The adoption ceremony performed on 02.05.1969. It is admitted fact that Supari Osta got a son-plaintiff and Likhar Osta died issue-less and Ghoghan Osta died leaving the defendant No: 1 Panchu Osta @ Nilkanth Osta as his adopted son. The adoption ceremony performed on 02.05.1969. Further contention of the defendants is that on the request of Ghoghan Osta being issue-less and his wife died long ago, the defendant No: 2 & 3-natural parents of the defendant No: 1 agree to give the defendant No: 1 aged about 05 years in adoption to the said Ghoghan Osta on 02.05.1969 in presence of the villagers. The defendant No: 1 was given in adoption to Ghoghan Osta by his natural parents and his name was changed as Nilkanth Osta. The said adopted son Nilkanth Osta has been transferred and left his connection from the family of his birth and got all relation and right as adopted son in the family of Ghoghan Osta. In token of the aforesaid adoption, including performance of giving and taking, Ghoghan Osta, the adoptive father executed a deed of adoption knowing full well the contents of the deed true and correct in presence of the witnesses. The natural father Indar Osta put his signature and natural mother Bimali Ostain put her L.T.I. on every page of the deed. The said deed of adoption was presented for execution before Sub-Registry, Dumka on 26.06.1969 and the said Ghoghan Osta including natural parents of the defendant No: 1 admitted the adoption and execution of the said deed and thereafter, the adoption deed was duly been registered bearing No: 962/1969 and since then, the defendant No: 1 known by every body including the plaintiff as adopted son of Ghoghan Osta. Further contention of the defendant is that it is false to say that Ghoghan Osta was of un-sound mind since long before and he died in such condition, rather he was of sound and healthy mind. It is also false to say that the plaintiff Mohan Osta got knowledge to the said adoption deed in year 1988 at the time of "Bhujarat" in Tasdique Camp at Hansdiha, rather he had full knowledge about the said deed since the year 1969. There was dispute over performance of “Mukhagani Kriya” between plaintiff and defendants and the defendants produced the said deed at this very occasion as well as on several occasions. There was dispute over performance of “Mukhagani Kriya” between plaintiff and defendants and the defendants produced the said deed at this very occasion as well as on several occasions. Thus, the plaintiff has full knowledge about the said deed from early and not in the year 1988. It is also false that the defendant No.2 and 3 brought Ghoghan Osta at Dumka in condition of un-soundness of mind and without explaining the contents of the deed of adoption and the said deed of adoption was obtained by false representation in place of “Bhugatbandha” deed. Further the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff being Ghoghan Osta adopted the defendant no.1 on 02.05.1969 and the alleged deed of adoption registered on 26.06.1969 and ceremony including giving and taking performed at village Dhoni in presence of villagers and relatives, after performing the “Satyanarayan – Puja-Katha”. The giving and taking ceremony performed by actual handing over the defendant no.1 by defendant no.2 and 3 to the said Ghoghan Osta and he taken the defendant no.1 and as such adopted him and thereafter re-named as Nilkanth Osta which fully confirms the said deed of adoption. 7. In view of the above pleadings of the learned appellant/ plaintiff and the respondent/ defendant the learned trial court dismissed the suit as discussed hereinabove. 8. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the finding of the learned appellate court is perverse in view of the fact that the heavy reliance has been placed on Exhibit-B filed by the defendant/respondents but it would not be out of place to mention here that at the time of hearing the appeal Exhibit-B was not available on record and this finds corroboration of the certified copy of the records filed and inspite of that the learned trial court and the learned appellate court has dismissed the suit which is against the mandate of law and the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate are perverse and in that view of the matter there is substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal which may kindly be admitted on the substantial question of law. 9. 9. In view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, the Court has gone through the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court and finds that the learned trial court while deciding the suit has framed six issues. The issue no.5 was with respect of registered deed of adoption as to whether it was illegal, false, invalid or inoperative or not. While deciding the issue no.6 along with 1 and 2, the learned trial court has held that the appellant/ plaintiff was not able to prove that so far as Exhibit-B is concerned, at the time of execution of deed of adoption Ghoghan Osta was mentally retarded and the plaintiffs were also not able to demonstrate that Ghoghan Osta has not taken the defendant no.1 on the lap and considering all the evidences that finding was reached and thereafter the judgment has been delivered whereby the suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 19.02.1997. The learned appellate court has framed two additional issues to decide the appeal. Point no.1 was with respect to adoption deed was fabricated, false, illegal and inoperative or not and the defendant no.1 is illegally adopted son of Ghoghan Osta or not? The learned appellate court has considered that D.W.6 in para-4 of his evidence has specifically and clearly deposed that the mind of Ghoghan Osta was healthy and sound and his mind was not disturbed and the learned appellate court has further found from the Exhibit-B that Ghoghan Osta has created and executed the deed of adoption before the Registrar, Sub –Registry, Dumka in presence of witnesses and the identifier also identifies the executor and considering that evidence the learned appellate court has held that Ghothan Osta was not of unsound mind and his mind was fully healthy and sound and in that condition, he has executed the deed of adoption before the Registrar, Public Officer in presence of witness. The appellant/ plaintiff has also stated which has been considered by the learned appellate court that in his evidence that he neither treated Ghoghan Osta at any place nor he has any certificate regarding the un-sound mind of Ghoghan Osta and considering this, the learned appellate court has held that the history of unsound mind of Ghoghan Osta has been created for the purpose of declaring the adoption deed as invalid. The learned appellate court has further found that the plaintiff/ appellant asserted that Ghoghan Osta was brought at Registry Office, Dumka for execution of “Bhugatbandha” deed but in place of “Bhugatbandha” deed, he was illegally by false representation deed of adoption was created and executed by him with connivance of defendant nos.2 and 3. The learned appellate court has further considered that P.W.2 in his evidence in para no.3 specifically and clearly deposed that he has no knowledge about the adoption taken by Ghoghan Osta and other witnesses namely, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7 specifically and clearly denied about any adoption deed as well as adoption ceremony, however, D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.6 specifically in their evidences separately have stated that Ghoghan Osta had taken in adoption to defendant no.1 and all these D.Ws. in their evidences further specifically deposed that “Satyanarayan-Katha-Puja” was performed and process of giving and taking ceremony for adoption was done and considering all these facts as well as the evidences of the D.Ws. and further the Exhibit-B which is the registered deed of adoption, the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that the recital of the deed clearly confirms about actual process of giving and taking ceremony and after going through the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal. It is well settled that once the adoption registered deed is there, Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is required to be taken care of and in this regard and further it is settled law that it is the 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 & Another Vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRS. and Others” reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97 , wherein at paragraph nos. 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. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRS. and Others” reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97 , wherein at paragraph nos. 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 v. State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000] ; Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. [1995 SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251 ] ; Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. [Vide Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000] ; Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. [1995 SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251 ] ; Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2003) 11 SCC 367 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1055 : AIR 2004 SC 552 ] ; Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra [ (2007) 14 SCC 150 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 773 : AIR 2007 SC Supp 100] ; Kunju v. State of T.N. [ (2008) 2 SCC 151 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 331 : AIR 2008 SC 1381 ] ; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B. [ (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 v. 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 v. State of H.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 7 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 1994 SC 226 ], State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh [ (1998) 3 SCC 561 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 850 : AIR 1998 SC 1328 ], Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi [ (2001) 7 SCC 69 : AIR 2001 SC 3207 ] and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [ (2005) 9 SCC 283 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1230 : AIR 2005 SC 1096 ].)” 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the argument advanced by Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is not accepted by this Court. 11. In aforesaid view of the matter, the Court comes to the conclusion that the learned two facts finding courts have come to that conclusion and there is concurrent finding of both the learned courts, no perversity has been shown in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, and this Court, sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C. is not required to interfere with the judgment of the learned courts if there is no substantial question of law is involved. 12. Accordingly, Second Appeal No.175 of 2012 is dismissed. 13. Pending petition, if any, also stands dismissed.