https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186236 In second appeal, factual findings on adoption could not be disturbed absent a substantial question of law. The remand order was an open remand, so the earlier appellate findings on adoption did not attain finality, and the dismissed cross-objection did not amount to confirmation. The Court also held that a claim that the adoptee was given by Kishan Lal was not pleaded and could not be established through evidence alone. On the nature of the adoption, a dwyamushyayana adoption requires specific pleading and proof of an agreement that the son belongs to both fathers, which was not shown; the adoption was therefore treated as an ordinary adoption. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:53:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186236 In second appeal, factual findings on adoption could not be disturbed absent a substantial question of law. The remand order was an open remand, so the earlier appellate findings on adoption did not attain finality, and the dismissed cross-objection did not amount to confirmation. The Court also held that a claim that the adoptee was given by Kishan Lal was not pleaded and could not be established through evidence alone. On the nature of the adoption, a dwyamushyayana adoption requires specific pleading and proof of an agreement that the son belongs to both fathers, which was not shown; the adoption was therefore treated as an ordinary adoption. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186236