JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal, filed by the original defendant No.3, arises from the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Botad in Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2018, confirming the judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Gaghada in Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2010, allowing the same filed by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant – Shivrajbhai Bahadurbhai Govaliya has filed a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act to declare that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Ravatbhai Dadabhai Govaliya and thereby the declare that the plaintiff is entitled to get the property of said Ravatbhai. The learned trial Court has, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence – documentary and oral, partly allowed the suit and held that the plaintiff – Shivrajbhai is an adopted son of Ravatbhai and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get the lands of said deceased Ravatbhai being his heir, as Ravatbhai has no child and has adopted the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.3, who is his biological brother and after adoption, he is a cousin brother, has challenged the said judgment of the learned trial Court before the learned appellate Court below. The learned appellate Court below has, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal before this Court at the hands of the original defendant No.3. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji for learned advocate Mr.Bhunesh Rupera for the appellant. 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that before passing such order for declaration by the learned trial Court, the other side has to be heard without considering the documents of evidence and submission. He has further submitted that the appellant was willing and very vigilant in conducting the matter, but due to unavoidable circumstances, the appellant could not produce his written statement as well as any further evidence to prove his case, though the opportunity is granted earlier as well as allowing Exh.30 application by the learned trial Court. He has further submitted that the appellant was willing and very vigilant in conducting the matter, but due to unavoidable circumstances, the appellant could not produce his written statement as well as any further evidence to prove his case, though the opportunity is granted earlier as well as allowing Exh.30 application by the learned trial Court. 4.2 He has also submitted that the learned appellate Court below did not consider the facts that the adoption note (Exh.27) does not contain the signature or any kind of stamp from the Mamlatdar and it is not registered with the concerned authority, which indicates that it is forged and it does not have any evidence, which is admissible in Court of law. He has submitted that the name of original plaintiff in all Government document is known as Shivarajbhai Bahadurbhai and not Shivrajbhai Ravatbhai. He has submitted that the respondents are the real brother and the present appellant is the cousin brother, which shows that the respondents in connivance with each other had performed an act of cheating and with fraudulent intention the respondent no.2 had not served the said notice to the appellant of the suit proceeding, and for that, the appellant was deprived of his rights to file the written submission before the learned trial Court and that right was closed. 4.3 He has submitted that the appellate Court below should comply with the Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is mandatory in nature. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Lakhu Karman Bharwad versus State of Gujarat reported in 2015 LawSuit (Guj.) 855 and in the case of K.Karuppuraj versus Ganesan reported in (2021) 10 SCC 777 . He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed. 5.1 I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant. I have also considered the averments made in this appeal. I have also considered the documents available on record. I have perused the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 5.2 From record, the following undisputed facts are emerged. 5.2.1 The grand-father of all the parties is Dadabhai Raningbhai. He has four children, amongst three are sons viz., Ravatbhai, Bhojbhai and Bahadurbhai and one is daughter viz., Masuben. 5.2.2 Ravatbhai has no child. I have perused the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. 5.2 From record, the following undisputed facts are emerged. 5.2.1 The grand-father of all the parties is Dadabhai Raningbhai. He has four children, amongst three are sons viz., Ravatbhai, Bhojbhai and Bahadurbhai and one is daughter viz., Masuben. 5.2.2 Ravatbhai has no child. Bhojbhai has one son viz., Babubhai and Bahadurbhai has three sons viz., Bavkubhai, Shivrajbhai and Pratapbhai. 5.2.3 Since Ravatbhai has no child, he has adopted one son viz., Shivrajbhai who is his younger brother’s son. At that time, Shivrajbhai was 5 years old. The religious ritual was also performed for the same and thereafter, said Shivrajbhai, who is a biological son of Bahardurbhai, is now adopted son of Ravatbhai. 5.2.4 Therefore, said Bahadurbhai has now two sons viz., Bavkubhai and Pratapbhai. 5.2.5 Ravatbhai has some agriculture lands in his name, which are in dispute. Ravatbhai has expired. His wife has expired earlier than Ravatbhai. Therefore, being the only son, who is an adopted son, Shivrajbhai is shown as the only heir of deceased Ravatbhai. Therefore, the lands in question have come in the name of Shivrajbhai being the only legal heir of deceased Ravatbhai. 6.1 Due to family pressure, said Shivrajbhai has filed a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act to declare that he is an adopted son of deceased Ravatbhai and therefore, he is entitled to get the lands in question being the heir of deceased Ravatbhai. 6.2.1 The learned trial Court has framed the various issues at Exh.8 and has, after taking into consideration the various evidence – documentary as well as oral at Exh.10 to 13 and 17 to 24, partly allowed the suit and thereby declared that Shivarjbhai is an adopted son of deceased Ravatbhai, and further, Shivrajbhai is entitled to get the lands in question being the legal heir of deceased Ravatbhai. 6.2.2 While allowing the suit, the learned trial Court has observed that the biological parents have given their child – Shivrajbhai, who was aged about 5 years at that time, without any pressure and by their free wish, to Ravatbhai and his wife – Kamlaben by performing Hindu rituals and therefrom, said Shivrabhai was residing with Ravatbhai. 6.2.2 While allowing the suit, the learned trial Court has observed that the biological parents have given their child – Shivrajbhai, who was aged about 5 years at that time, without any pressure and by their free wish, to Ravatbhai and his wife – Kamlaben by performing Hindu rituals and therefrom, said Shivrabhai was residing with Ravatbhai. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the deposition of the witness at Exh.11, who is a Hindu priest, and performed the rituals of adoption at the relevant point of time. Further, the learned trial Court has also examined evidence of one witness at Exh.13, who is a person, who kept all the records of ancestors for last hundred years, by his own hand. It is a hand-written book. He also supported the case of the plaintiff. It is required to be noted that the said evidence has not been rebutted by the defendants. 6.2.3 Further, the learned trial Court has also observed that said Ravatbhai has expired intestate. His wife - Kamlaben has expired earlier than him. There is no biological child of said Ravatbhai, which is an undisputed fact. Shivrajbhai is adopted by Ravatbhai is also an undisputed fact. The evidence at Exh.11 and 13 support the case of the plaintiff, which is not rebutted by the defendants. Therefore, said Shivrajbhai fall in Class-I of the heirship and since Class-I is alive, the property should be divided in Class-I heir/s only and not in Class-II. It is an undisputed fact that, the defendants are the Class-II heirs of deceased Ravatbhai. They are the sons of Ravatbhai’s brothers. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff – Shivrajbhai is the only legal heir of deceased Ravatbhai. 6.2.4 During the suit proceeding, the plaintiff has produced various evidence in support of his case, whereas though notice was served to the defendants, as it is taken by one of the defendants on behalf of all as alleged, the defendants have not produced any evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff. They have even not produced separate evidence in their favour. They have even not argued the matter and have not filed any written submissions, though opportunity was given. 6.2.5 Further, the learned trial Court below has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as well as Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. They have even not produced separate evidence in their favour. They have even not argued the matter and have not filed any written submissions, though opportunity was given. 6.2.5 Further, the learned trial Court below has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as well as Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 6.2.6 Thus, the learned trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has proved his case, he is the only adopted son of deceased Ravatbhai and therefore, he is entitled to get the lands in question being the legal heir of deceased Ravatbhai. 6.3.1 Against which, defendant No.3 – Babubhai Bahadurbhai Govaliya has preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court below. The learned appellate Court below has, after considering the averments made in the appeal as well as after considering the evidence – documentary as well as oral, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 6.3.2 While dismissing the appeal, the learned appellate Court below has taken into consideration the various evidence 6.3.3 While dismissing the appeal, the learned appellate Court below has reiterated that the biological parents have given their child – Shivrajbhai to Ravatbhai and Ravatbhai and his wife – Kamlaben have adopted Shivrajbhai as their son with all Hindu rites and rituals. The evidence of Hindu priest was taken at Exh.11. The said fact is an undisputed fact and is not challenged by the original defendants before any forum/Court till date. At that time, the age of Shivrajbhai was 5 years. There is no child to Ravatbhai. Further, the deposition of Exh.13 – Bhavubhai Amrabhai Barot supports the case of the original plaintiff. The original defendants have not cross-examined the said two witnesses i.e. Exh.11 and Exh.13, respectively, though ample opportunity was given to them. Though the ample opportunity is given to the defendants, no written statement is filed to convert the averments made in the plaint nor any evidence is produced by the defendant to controvert the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff has proved his case in accordance with law. Though the ample opportunity is given to the defendants, no written statement is filed to convert the averments made in the plaint nor any evidence is produced by the defendant to controvert the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff has proved his case in accordance with law. 6.3.4 The learned appellate Court below has also taken into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.Siddiqui versus A.Ramalingam reported in AIR 2011 SC 1491, wherein it is observed that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code provide guidelines for the appellate Court as to how the Court has to proceed and decide the case. In the present case, both the Courts below have properly applied their minds, passed the impugned judgments and followed the guidelines. 7.1 Thus, from the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the impugned judgment and observations made by the learned lower appellate Court, this Court is of the opinion that the learned appellate Court below has framed the points and decided it accordingly by giving cogent and convincing reasons, as recorded in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court below is just, proper, in accordance with law and in consonance with the material available on the record as well as after properly appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on the record and no error of perversity in the findings given by the Courts below is found which can lead to this Court to frame the substantial questions of law. In fact, both the Courts below have appreciated the pleadings as well as evidence produced on record in the accordance with the law and have given cogent and convincing reasons. 7.2 It would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which read as under : “5. Adoptions to be regulated by this Chapter (1) No adoption shall be made ? (1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. Adoptions to be regulated by this Chapter (1) No adoption shall be made ? (1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. (2) An adoption which is void shall neither create any rights in the adoptive family in favour of any person which he or she could not have acquired except by reason of the adoption, nor destroy the rights of any person in the family of his or her birth. 6. Requisites of a valid adoption No ? (1) No adoption shall be made adoption shall be valid unless— (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; (ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter.” 7.3 Further, it would also be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 and Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which read as under : “O.VIII R.10 : Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up:] Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement. O.XII Rule 6 : Judgment on admissions.—(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise; whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question – between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.” 7.4 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under: “[100. Second appeal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.” 7.5 It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs and Others., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 875, more particularly paragraphs 7, 14 and 15 thereof, which read as under : “7. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The section itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be maintainable when the case involves a substantial question of law or that the appellate decree has been passed ex parte. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (2- Judge Bench), it was observed:— “27. In HeroVinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 , this Court referred to and relied upon Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 and other judgments and summarised the tests to find out whether a given set of questions of law were mere questions of law or substantial questions of law. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth [Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 ] are set out hereinbelow : (SCC p. 554, para 21) “21. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying “question of law”, means— of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with—technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta [Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta, 1928 SCC OnLine PC 31 : (1927-28) 55 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172 ] the phrase “substantial question of law” as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case. In Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. In Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju, 1951 SCC OnLine Mad 100 : AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (Chunilal case [Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 ], AIR p. 1318, para 5) ‘5. … when a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.’ 28. To be “substantial”, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either way.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. As already noted above, another ground of objection taken by the Appellant is the fact of the impugned judgment entering into a reappreciation of evidence. While it is true that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, it is also equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone. In Nazir Mohamed (supra) this Court has recognised three conditions in which a court in such jurisdiction, may disturb findings of fact. They are:— “(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. They are:— “(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” 15. A Bench of three learned Judges, recently in Balasubramanian v. M. Arockiasamy (Dead) Through LRs. , had referred to, with approval judgment rendered in Ramathal v. Maruthathal (two-Judge Bench) wherein it was observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule. Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such findings.” 8. In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited hereinabove, when the learned lower appellate court has not ignored the material evidence and not drawn wrong inferences from the material available on record, and has rightly come to the conclusion and properly appreciated the evidence by framing points of determination under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same by framing substantial questions of law as suggested by the learned advocate for the appellant. 9. In view of above, both the learned Courts below have not committed any error. There is no perversity, illegality in the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. This appeal, therefore, needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.