JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 05.10.1996 and decree signed on 11.10.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 4/1993, whereby and whereunder, the appeal has been allowed and the judgment dated 30.11.1992 and decree signed on 07.12.1992 passed by learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No. 25/1989 has been set aside. 3. The present second appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 04.12.1997 on the following substantial questions of law:- (I) Whether the judgment of the learned court of appeal below is vitiated due to not meeting all the points dealt with by the trial court? (II) Whether in a case where the parties have led evidence although not pleaded in the pleading the same are required to be considered by the court and the findings given by the court below otherwise are bad in law? 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this second appeal is that original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon filed the Title Suit No. 25 of 1989 for declaration of registered Adoption (Godnama) Deed dated 11.02.1974 executed by Mangra Francis Oraon (original plaintiff) in favour of Rajesh Oraon (original defendant) as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is alleged that in the month of February, 1988, the plaintiff wanted to take out deed from the Registry Office, then the Deed Writer told him that the adoption has been executed in favour of defendant no. 1 namely, Rajesh Oraon. The plaintiff applied for the copy of the adoption deed and the said Godnama was cancelled by Cancellation Deed No. IV 9 dated 14.03.1988. It is alleged that the original plaintiff has executed the aforesaid registered Godnama (Adoption) Deed in favour of his own bhagina Zerom Oraon because he was issueless and his bhagina was looking after him and assisting in cultivation of field, but the defendant no. 1 in league of his father Alfons Oraon, who works as a Deed Writer changed the name of Zerom Oraon in place of adopted son and inserted the name of defendant no. 1 by cutting the name over the original Adoption Deed. 1 in league of his father Alfons Oraon, who works as a Deed Writer changed the name of Zerom Oraon in place of adopted son and inserted the name of defendant no. 1 by cutting the name over the original Adoption Deed. The plaintiff after coming to know about the said fraud wanted to get away his landed property to his bhagina and originally adopted son Zerom Oraon and sought permission from the competent authority vide Permission Case No. 272/1988-89, but that was rejected on 24.02.1989 on account of execution of alleged forged and tampered adoption deed in favour of defendant no. 1. Therefore, the alleged Adoption Deed, which has been tampered by practicing fraud by defendant no. 1, is liable to be declared null and void document. The cause of action arose on 11.02.1974, when the alleged forged document was executed, later on 14.03.1988 and 24.02.1989 when the cancellation deed was executed by the plaintiff and rejection of application for permission. 5. The contesting defendant no. 1 appeared and filed his written statement taking plea that the suit is not maintainable in present form, barred by law of limitation, acquiescence and estoppel, barred by non- joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of causes of action and provisions of Specific Relief Act. 6. Apart from aforesaid legal pleas, it is pleaded that the plaintiff has rightly and voluntarily of his own free will has executed the alleged registered Adoption Deed dated 11.02.1974 in favour of defendant no. 1. The defendant has no knowledge of Cancellation Deed of Godnama unilaterally executed by the plaintiff on 14.03.1988. This defendant has never practiced any fraud against the plaintiff in any manner, rather he has been maintained by the original plaintiff as his adopted son and residing with him. Zerom Oraon, the alleged bhagina of the plaintiff, is completely stranger to the Adoption Deed. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has settled following issues for adjudication:- (I) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (II) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties? (IV) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, acquiescence and estoppel? (V) Is Zerom Oraon adopted son of the plaintiff? (II) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties? (IV) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, acquiescence and estoppel? (V) Is Zerom Oraon adopted son of the plaintiff? (VI) Is Godnama Patta executed by the plaintiff on 11.2.74 genuine or the same is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff? (VII) Has the father of defendant no. 1 in league with the deed writer got the registered Godnama Patta No. 2 dated 11.02.1974 executed fraudulently? (VIII) Is the plaintiff entitled to relief as claimed? 8. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial court, while deciding Issue No. (1) & (2), arrived at conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that he adopted his own bhagina Zerom Oraon as his son through the registered deed, but defendant no. 1 in connivance with his father Alfons Oraon, who works as a Deed Writer and residing with him got his own name inserted in the original deed in place of Zerom Oraon. He has also proved that defendant no. 1 never resided and looking after the plaintiff, which fact also finds corroboration from the evidence of D.W.-4 Teja Oraon that defendant Rajesh Oraon never resided with plaintiff rather he is residing with his natural father Alfons. The defendant Rajesh Oraon in his evidence has also admitted that his mother had no relationship as sister with original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon. His mother is also live, who resides at Village-Kurmi. He also admits that in his maternal uncle’s village Mangra has no relationship. At the time of filing his examination-in-chief on affidavit, the defendant has mentioned the name of his father Alfons Oraon and not the name of original plaintiff as adoptive father. Therefore, he did not get rid of from relationship of his original father. The plaintiff came to know about the above fraud committed by the defendant in the year 1988 and also filed cancellation deed of the registered adoption deed and thereafter filed the suit having valid cause of action and the suit is maintainable. 9. The learned trial court has also decided Issue No. (4) in favour of plaintiff and categorically recorded finding that the registered adoption deed was admittedly executed on 11.02.1974 and the suit has been filed in the year 1989. 9. The learned trial court has also decided Issue No. (4) in favour of plaintiff and categorically recorded finding that the registered adoption deed was admittedly executed on 11.02.1974 and the suit has been filed in the year 1989. It is proved by the plaintiff that the said deed of adoption has been fraudulently tampered by the defendant inserting his name in place of adopted child, Zerom Oraon and he came to know about the said fraud in the month of February, 1988 and also filed Godnama Cancellation Deed, therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation as it is filed within period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the fraud. 10. The learned trial court considering the evidence on record also decided the main Issue No. (5) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Other ancillary issues were also decided in favour of plaintiff. 11. Since the main issue goes in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of learned trial court vide Title Appeal No. 4/1993, wherein the first appellate court has formulated following four points for adjudication of the appeal:- (I) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation. (II) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? (III) Whether the deed of adoption dated 11.2.1974 was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of Rajesh Oraon the defendant no. 1 due to fraud being perpetrated on him by the defendant no. 1, his father and the deed writer? (IV) Whether the original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon had adopted the defendant no. 1 or he had adopted Zerom Oraon? 12. The learned first appellate court adjudicated the Point No. (IV) at first and after discussing the oral evidence adduced by the parties without meeting out the reasons scribed by the learned trial court on the relevant issue adopted his own ratiocination and inferences, but could not arrived at definite conclusion, rather it is stated at para-19 of the judgment as under:-. “19. On the basis of the discussions of evidence and circumstances referred to above, I hold that the basic requirement of adoption viz giving and taking of the boy is missing from the evidence and as such no declaration can be given in this suit that Mangra Francis Oraon had adopted Zerom Oraon. “19. On the basis of the discussions of evidence and circumstances referred to above, I hold that the basic requirement of adoption viz giving and taking of the boy is missing from the evidence and as such no declaration can be given in this suit that Mangra Francis Oraon had adopted Zerom Oraon. Moreover, the evidence also shows that Zerom Oraon had been kept by Mangra Francis Oraon like a Dhanger in his house to look after his cultivation and he might be treating him like a son, but from that no inference can be drawn that the original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon had adopted Zerom Oraon. Henc no such declaration can be given. Moreover, no such declaration has been sought and on the basis of the authority referred to above this relief cannot be granted. Hence, this point decided against the plaintiff respondent.” 13. The learned first appellate court, while deciding cardinal point No. (III) of this case, has gone through the evidences of oral witnesses, particularly one attesting witness examined by plaintiff P.W.-2 Jowakin Oraon and another attesting witness of the Adoption Deed namely, D.W.-6 Prabhu Dayal Sahu and arrived at conclusion that on the basis of evidence of D.W.-6, it cannot be inferred that the Deed Writer Bhikhari Das in league with the defendant no. 1 committed fraud on the plaintiff and scribed the deed in favour of Rajesh Oraon by inserting his name after deleting the name of Zerom Oraon. 14. The learned appellate court, while deciding Point No. (I) i.e. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, has simply recorded finding that the adoption deed was executed on 11.02.1974 and present suit was filed on 22.03.1989. Therefore, the suit is apparently been filed more than 15 years after execution of the deed and barred by limitation and the justification given by the plaintiff regarding knowledge of the fraud committed by the defendant, since while deciding Point No. (III) it has been concluded that the allegation of fraud has not been proved by the plaintiff, therefore, this suit of the original plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation. 15. The appellate court, while deciding Point No. (II), has held that the plaintiff has claimed that defendant no. 15. The appellate court, while deciding Point No. (II), has held that the plaintiff has claimed that defendant no. 1 in league of deed writer had perpetrated fraud on him by deleting the name of Zerom Oraon in the deed of adoption and by inserting the name of Rajesh Oraon, defendant no.1, therefore, the deed writer Bhikhari Das and Alfons Oraon, father of defendant no. 1 were also necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon was illiterate person and all over the documents, he has put his thumb impression including plaint, affidavits as well as the document of adoption impugned herein. Admittedly, the plaintiff has executed registered Adoption Deed on 11.02.1974, the content of deed itself goes to show that Zerom Oraon (present appellant) is bhagina of the original plaintiff, to whom he adopted through the above impugned deed of adoption. The clear-cut case of the plaintiff is that in the month of February, 1988, for the first time the plaintiff came to know about the fraud committed by the defendant no. 1 in connivance of his father and deed writer etc. and they had tampered in the original deed as regards the name of the adopted son and replaced the name of Rajesh Oraon, son of Alfons Oraon by cutting the name of Zerom Oraon, son of Hirnus Oraon. The other parts of the contents of deed do not show the execution of Godnama in the name of Rajesh Oraon. Therefore, from the date of knowledge, the suit was instituted within the limitation period of three years as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial court on the question of limitation (Issue No. IV) held that the suit is not barred by law of limitation and the specific opinion that this Court has considered the broad circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and not under point of technicality, but the learned first appellate court has reversed the aforesaid findings and held the suit to be barred by limitation only on the basis that the plaintiff was executant of the adoption deed, therefore, he must be presumed know the contents of the same. Therefore, the plea of fraud and the date of discovery of fraud was disbelieved without recording any sound reasons and without meeting out reasons assigned by the trial court while deciding the issue of limitation in favour of plaintiff. 17. It is further submitted that the learned first appellate court has miserably failed to take into notice the contents of original registered deed of adoption dated 11.02.1974 (Exhibit-B) which was produced by defendants bearing the cutting at the place of name of adopted line which clearly shows that the name of Zerom Oraon, son of Hirnus Oraon has been cut and the name of Rajesh Oraon has been inserted over the cutting. Apart from this, the first appellate court has also ignored the evidence of oral testimony of defendant no. 1 (examined as D.W. 5), who adduces in his evidence, he is not bhagina of the plaintiff, rather he is local villager, but calls the plaintiff as ‘mama. He never resided with the plaintiff, rather admits that Zerom was residing in the house of the plaintiff and looking after his cultivation and supporting the family. The plaintiff himself has also specifically pleaded and proved that he has adopted Zerom Oraon as his son, who was all along living with him. Although, no consequential relief regarding declaring the Zerom Oraon as validly adopted son of the plaintiff, but that cannot be basis for dismissal of the suit and the plaintiff cannot be prevented to file a separate suit for such remedy, where no prejudice is to be caused to the defendant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court is fit to be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court be restored. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the learned first appellate court has passed well-reasoned order in respect of issue of limitation and rightly held that the plaintiff himself is executant of the adoption deed. Hence, there will be presumption against him that he knows its contents. Therefore, the limitation period of three years commencing from very date of execution i.e. 22.03.1989. The plea of fraud taken by the plaintiff cannot be sustained. 19. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has also taken note that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the limitation period of three years commencing from very date of execution i.e. 22.03.1989. The plea of fraud taken by the plaintiff cannot be sustained. 19. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has also taken note that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Admittedly, the adopted son Rajesh Oraon was minor at the time of execution of the deed and there is allegation of fraud against his father Alfons Oraon, who has not been made party in the suit. The deed writer, who disclosed the plaintiff about the fraud committed in respect of changing the name of the adopted son has also not been joined as party. The attesting witnesses of the adoption deed dated 11.02.1974 i.e. P.W.-2 Jowakin Oraon and D.W.-6 Prabhu Dayal Sahu have also not supported the case of plaintiff on the point of fraud. 20. It is further submitted that the original plaintiff has never prayed for declaration that he has adopted Zerom Oraon and not Rajesh Oraon, rather simply sought for cancellation of registered adoption deed dated 11.02.1974 without any ground justifiable under law. Therefore, judgment of reversal of the decree passed by the learned trial court in the first appeal is based on sound reasons meeting out all the points decided by the learned trial court while considering the appeal. There is no error of law in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the first appellate court, calling for any interference on the substantial question of law relied upon by the appellant / plaintiff. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 21. I have given anxious consideration to entire materials available on record in the light of submissions raised on behalf of both sides. 22. It is here to be mentioned that while deciding Point No. (IV), the appellate court has recorded no findings regarding the validity of the Adoption Deed challenged in this case in favour of the defendant no. 1 and there is no finding that the defendant no. 1 is validly adopted child of the original plaintiff. The specific case of the original plaintiff is that the adoption has been got executed by him in the name of Zerom Oraon, but fraudulently it was tampered and name of defendant no. 1 was inserted after execution of the deed. 23. 1 is validly adopted child of the original plaintiff. The specific case of the original plaintiff is that the adoption has been got executed by him in the name of Zerom Oraon, but fraudulently it was tampered and name of defendant no. 1 was inserted after execution of the deed. 23. As regards Point No. (III) is concerned, it is quite obvious that the learned appellate court has not gone through the contents of the original registered adoption deed (Exhibit-B) as well as certified copy of it, which obviously goes to show that the name of the adopted child is erased and there is overwriting, inserting the name of defendant no. 1, as the adopted child, but the rest contents of the deed clearly shows that Mangra Francis Oraon has taken adoption of his own sister’s son Zerom Oraon and the original deed of adoption filed by defendant and marked Exhibit-B itself shows the name of adopted child which was inserted in the name of Rajesh Oraon, son of Alfons Oraon cutting the name of Zerom Oraon, son of Hirnus Oraon. There is no evidence at all led by the defendant no. 1 that he is bhagina of the original plaintiff, rather he is co-villager and resides just adjacent to the house of plaintiff. It is also admitted that defendant no. 1 is not bhagina of original plaintiff and his mother is not real sister of the original plaintiff Mangra Francis Oraon. 24. The learned appellate court has also ignored Exhibit-A i.e. power of attorney executed by defendant no. 1 in the name of his natural father to look after this case because he is under Government employment and unable to effectively do pairvi of the case. The power of attorney holder is none else but natural father of the defendant no. 1 whom he still recognizes as father. No explanation has been put forward by the defendant no. 1 regarding cutting over the original adoption deed on the vital part regarding name of the adopted child. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of adoption deed to be void on the ground that it was obtained in the name of defendant no. 1 by playing fraud and tampering the original deed. 25. 1 regarding cutting over the original adoption deed on the vital part regarding name of the adopted child. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of adoption deed to be void on the ground that it was obtained in the name of defendant no. 1 by playing fraud and tampering the original deed. 25. The learned trial court has recorded very reasoned judgment on the Issue No. (3) and the learned appellate court has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence properly and based its findings only on some hypothetical inference. 26. It is quite obvious that the findings recorded by the appellate court about non joinder of necessary parties like deed writer Bhikhari Das and natural father of defendant no. 1, Alfons Oraon as party is also misconceived. The natural father of defendant no. 1, Alfons Oraon, who was appointed power of attorney holder by the defendant no. 1 to look after his case, has not been examined as a witness. The nature of suit, as framed, does not require any relief against the aforesaid persons and bare pleading about their mischievous act can’t make them as necessary party, in absence of them also suit can be decided. Therefore, the finding of the appellate court itself ambiguous and cannot be entertained. 27. As regards the Point No. (I) is concerned, it is quite obvious that Godnama Deed has been executed on 11.02.1974 and the suit by plaintiff has been filed in the year 1989. In this regard, it is very clear that the knowledge of fraud committed by defendants has been came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the month of February, 1988 and as per Article 59 of Limitation Act, to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree, or for rescission of a contract, the period of limitation is 3 years from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. 28. Hence, the suit filed by plaintiff was not barred by limitation. Thus, commission of fraud first time came to the knowledge of plaintiff in the month of February, 1988 and he had filed the suit within 3 years i.e. in the year 1989. 29. It appears that the learned trial court has decided each issue on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Thus, commission of fraud first time came to the knowledge of plaintiff in the month of February, 1988 and he had filed the suit within 3 years i.e. in the year 1989. 29. It appears that the learned trial court has decided each issue on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The core issue is whether the registered adoption deed Exhibit-B is creation of fraud committed upon the original plaintiff and liable to be declared null and void on that ground. 30. The best evidence would be the contents of deed itself. Exhibit-B, the original adoption deed clearly shows that it bears cutting and erasion of the original name which appears to be Zerom, son of Hirnus Oraon and name of defendant no. 1 is inserted. No explanation for such cutting and insertion of defendant no. 1 has been brought on record by the defendant no.1, who is beneficiary of the deed and the original deed was also produced by him, marked as Exhibit-B. 31. On the other hand, further contents of the impugned adoption deed itself shows that the adoption has been affected in the name of bhagina (sister’s son) of the original plaintiff. It is also not proved by defendant no.1 through cogent evidence that he is son of plaintiff’s sister, who was taken into adoption, which is valid one. 32. The original plaintiff in his oral evidence also reiterated the aforesaid facts, which has not been rebutted by the defendants. Therefore, the findings recorded by the appellate court without meeting out the reasons given by the learned trial court regarding the fraud played against the plaintiff is not justifiable under law. It is trite that no one can take advantage of his own wrong i.e. fraudulent act. 33. Learned appellate court has recorded erroneous findings on all the four points formulated for adjudication of the appeal. 34. In view of above discussion and reasons, the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court appears to be devoid of merits and based on hypothetical reasoning and beyond the weight of evidence, which is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is restored and this appeal is allowed 35. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 36. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial courts record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.