ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal arises out of order dated 11th August, 2014 of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 173 of 2005. The High Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the appellant for declaration to the effect that the appellant was the adopted daughter of late Sadhu Ram and was thus, entitled to her share in the suit property.

4. The trial Court relied upon evidence of the appellant including her own testimony as PW-1 and other oral and documentary evidence showing that she was duly adopted by late Sadhu Ram. The High Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court relying upon Section 11 (vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to the effect that evidence of actual giving and taking in adoption was a mandatory requirement which was not proved in the present case which was not proved in the present case.

5. We find that PW-3 Harbans Lal, uncle of the appellant categorically deposed about the adoption ceremony though he was not present in the said ceremony. Even if the said evidence is ignored, there is undisputed material to show that the appellant was treated as adopted