Concurrent adoption findings cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent perversity or legal error.

Talanki Archana sued for a declaration that she had been adopted by T.K. Narasimha Shetty and his wife, and for a half share in the suit properties.

She relied on photographs of the alleged adoption ceremony and school records naming Narasimha Shetty as her father.

The Trial Court found the adoption proved and granted her a half share; the First Appellate Court affirmed.

During the second appeal, Narasimha Shetty died, and purchasers pendente lite were permitted to prosecute the appeal. The appeal against the original defendant had abated.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s reasoning that the plaintiff had proved the adoption was in accordance with law.

2. Whether the purchasers pendente lite could disturb the findings concerning the adoption and the plaintiff’s declared share.

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a second appellate court does not reappreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible; interference with concurrent findings of fact is warranted only where they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled legal principles.

A transferee pendente lite takes subject to the result of the pending litigation and acquires no better right than the transferor; the transfer cannot defeat rights declared by the decree.

The judgment cites no specific adoption statute or precedent; it assesses whether the evidence established adoption on the preponderance of probabilities.

The Court found that the photographs, school records, surrounding circumstances, and the defendant’s admissions supported the concurrent finding that the ceremony was one of giving and taking in adoption.

His explanations—that it was a Gomukha Prasava Shanti ritual or a sixteenth-day celebration—were not pleaded and were inconsistent with the evidence, including the photographs showing an indoor ceremony and a child estimated to be about five months old.

The purchasers admitted that they had bought the properties during the litigation. Their purchase therefore remained subject to the decree and did not provide a basis to reopen the adoption finding or defeat the plaintiff’s share.

The Court found no perversity or legal error warranting second-appellate interference.

It held that the concurrent findings required no interference and that the plaintiff’s declared share could not be defeated by the pendente lite transfer.

The second appeal was dismissed.