I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In so far as the contention that there is no evidence of ceremony of giving and taking defendant no.1 in adoption is concerned, the contention is factually incorrect. Both parents of defendant no.1 stepped into witness box and deposed that necessary ceremony had taken place before the execution of adoption deed. As regards contradictions in the statements of defendants' witnesses, the same cannot be made a ground for setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. Moreover, it was pointed out that Narain Pardhan (DW-1) stated that he had scribed the adoption deed at Charkhi Dadri, whereas other witnesses have stated that adoption deed had been scribed at Badhra. However, it is not a contradiction, much less a material one because Narain Pardhan was examined on 06.08.2004 i.e. more than 14 years after the adoption deed had been scribed by him on 03.06.1990. In addition to it, Narain Pardhan was aged 86 years at the time of appearing in the witness box. Consequently, he could not be expected to remember the aforesaid detail after such a long period at such old age. Moreover, he was even unable to read the copy of adoption deed. He also could not tell where he had scribed the adoption deed. So, his testimony that he had scribed it at Charkhi Dadri cannot be said to be sufficient to contradict the other witnesses that the deed was scribed at Badhra.
