AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Since the parties as well as the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same and both the suits were
tried jointly and judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge in common, these appeals also are being disposed of in a common judgment.
O.S. No. 47 of 1998 has been filed by the appellant herein challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S. No.
502 of 1983, in which the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. O.S.A. No. 46 of 1998 by the appellant is directed
against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 665 of 1987, in which the appellant is the defendant and the
respondents are the plaintiffs.
The facts in C.S. No. 502 of 1983 (O.S.A. No. 47/1998) are as follows:-
a. The case of the plaintiff is this: the appellant/plaintiff was adopted by Mr. Ramarathinam and his wife Lalitha in the year 1959 when he was one
year old. However, the adoptive parents had given birth to one daughter in 1964, the second defendant and one son in 1966, the first defendant.
The adoptive mother of the appellant/plaintiff died in the year 1981 and the adoptive father Ramarathinum also died in the year 1982. After the
death, one Lakshmi Nagarajan, the sister of the adoptive mother Lalitha Ramarathinam who came for the funeral ceremonies of his adoptive father,
started giving trouble to him and threw him out of the house by throwing his articles. So, the appellant was forced to reside in the car shed. He
approached the defendants 1 and 2 and mother of the adoptive father, defendant No. 3 claiming 1/4 share by issuing notice. There was no proper
reply. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4 share.
b. The case of the defendants is this: The plaintiff was the son of a domestic servant Saradha, working in their house. Ramarathinam educated the
plaintiff out of compassion. The plaintiff belongs to Backward Vanniyar community, while Ramarathinam and Lalitha belonged to an orthodox
Brahmin community. After the death of the parents, Lakshmi Nagarajan, the maternal aunt of defendants 1 and 2 took care of them and managed
the properties on behalf of the minor children. The plaintiff was merely permitted to reside in the car shed because he is the son of the servant-maid
of the house and is helping their family by doing errand work. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any partition.
The facts in C.S. No. 665 of 1987 O.S.A. No. 46 of 1998) could be staled as follows :-
a. The plaintiffs in this suit are the defendants in C.S. No. 502 of 1983. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of the said Ramarathinam and Lalitha
and the third plaintiff is the mother of the said Ramarathinam. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the car shed from the
defendant who is the plaintiff in
C.S. No. 502 of 1983.
b. In this suit, the case of the plaintiffs is as follows :-
Defendant Ravichandran is the son of a servant-maid in the house of Ramarathinam and Lalitha. The said defendant was educated by them out of
compassion taking into account the fact that he was the boy of the servant-maid Saradha employed there and whose father has deserted his
mother. Therefore, he was allowed to stay in the car shed. After the death of the parents of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the defendant started giving
trouble to the plaintiffs. So, on 6.10.1994 a notice was issued by the plaintiffs revoking the permission and asking to vacate the car shed and leave
the place. Since that was not complied with, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for direction to the defendant to vacate the suit property and
deliver possession and also to pay the damages.
c. The case of the defendant, as staled in the plaint in C.S. No. 502 of 1983 as plaintiff, is that he was adopted by the said Ramarathinam and
Lalitha Ramarathinam in the year 1959, that he was brought up and educated by the adoptive parents and as such, he is one of the sharers of the
entire property of the adoptive parents and that therefore, he is not liable to be evicted and no damages could be claimed from him.
On the above pleadings, various issues were framed in both the suits. Though the issues framed were many, the important point for
determination in both the suits is whether the plaintiff in C.S. No. 502 of 1983 was the adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha and whether the
plaintiffs in C.S. No. 665 of 1987 are entitled to a decree for recovery of possession after evicting the defendant.
The issues in both the suits are interdependent and inter-linked. The result in C.S. No. 665 of 1987 depends upon the result in C.S.No502 of
1983. In other words, the main issue would be whether the adoption of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 502 of 1983 by late Ramarathinam and Lalitha
Ramarathinam is true and valid in law.
In order to decide the above main issue, both the suits were tried jointly and common evidence was recorded. In order to prove the plea of
adoption, the plaintiff has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and filed Exs.P1 to P6. For disproving this claim, the defendants have examined D.Ws. 1 to 7
and filed Exs.D1 to D39 on their side.
On consideration of the materials placed by the respective parties, the learned single Judge concluded that the alleged adoption and the evidence
relating to the same are false and consequently dismissed the suit in C.S. No. 502 of 1983 and decreed the suit in C.S. No. 665 of 1987.
These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and decree contending mat the learned single Judge has not appreciated the evidence
properly and the same suffers from illegality and consequently, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Mr. K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both these appeals, would contend that the fact of adoption has been clearly proved
by the evidence of P.W. 1, who is the natural mother of the appellant, that the various school records filed by the appellant and the defendants
would show that the appellant was treated as adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha throughout their life, that these materials have not been
properly considered by the trial Court and that this Court being the appellate forum has got powers to reassess the evidence and come to the
conclusion that the adoption of the appellant as the son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha was valid. He would also cite some authorities with regard to
the position of law relating to the question of adoption.
On the other hand, Mr. T.V. Ramanujam learned senior counsel appearing for respondents pointed out that there are no acceptable materials
to prove the claim of the appellant as adopted son, whereas the defendants established through the documents that the appellant was given
education by Ramarathinam and Lalitha out of compassion not as adopted son but as an orphan and that the judgment and decree of the trial
Court have got to be confirmed.
We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the
depositions, records, impugned judgment and the various citations.
The leading case on adoption is the case of Kishori Lal v. Mr. Chaltibai (AIR. 1959 S.C. 504). Following this decision, there are number of
judgments interpreting various sections of the Act relating to the nature of proof to establish the adoption. Those decisions are as follows:-
Sitabai v. Ramchandra (A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 343);
A.S. Sailaja v. Principal, Kurnool Medical College (A.I.R. 1986 A.P. 209);
Rahasa Pandiani v. Gokulananda Panda (A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 962);
Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti (1967 S.C. 1761):
Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 114);
Lallan Ram v. Gobri Ram (A.I.R. 1972 Allahabad 540);
Kashi Nath v. Mahadeo (A.I.R. 1977 Patna 199);
Urmila Devi v. Hemanta Kumar Mohanta (A.I.R. 1993 Orissa 213);
Nemichand Shantilal Patni v. Basaniabai (A.I.R.. 1994 Bombay 235);
Arjun Banchhor v. Buchi Banchhor (A.I.R. 1995 Orissa 32);
Balinki Padhano v. Gopalakrishna Padhano AIR 1964 Orissa 117);
Debi Prasady. Tribeni Devi (AIR 1970 S.C. 1286);
Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt. Rup Kanwar (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1378);
Raghunath Behra v. Balaram Behra (A.I.R. 1996 Orissa 38);
Golak Chandra v. Krutibas (A.I.R. 1979 Orissa 205).
Bearing in mind the well-settled principles relating to adoption, we would now examine the evidence let in by both the parties.
The plaintiff has let in two sets of evidence before the trial Court. The first aspect, namely the ceremony for adoption has been spoken to by P.
W. 1 Saradha who is the natural mother of the plaintiff. Except oral evidence of P.W. 1, there is no other documentary evidence produced to
support this. The second aspect is that the adoptive parents held out the plaintiff claiming to have been adopted as their son for a long time without
any controversy. In order to establish this aspect, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.2 and P.Ws.3 and 4 through whom Exs.P1 to P6 were
marked.
We shall now refer to the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 would state that when she was employed as a domestic servant in the house of
Ramarathinam and his wife, they requested P.W. 1 to give her third son in adoption, since the wife of Ramarathinam was medically advised by the
Doctors that she would not beget child. She would also state that she was informed by the adoptive parents that unless an operation was done,
there was no chance of Lalitha bearing any child in her womb. This alleged request was made by the adoptive parents in 1959.
Admittedly, the marriage between Ramarathinam and Lalilha was solemnized in the year 1957. According to P.W.1, the Doctors advised
Lalitha that she must undergo an operation and only then, she would be able to bear a child in her womb. In such a case, Lalitha would have
undergone an operation and waited for some more time. P.W.1 would admit in cross-examination that she herself got the first child only after 2 to
3 years subsequent to marriage. Therefore, either Lalitha would have wailed for some more years or the having rich parents would have naturally
gone for a second opinion from famous Doctors in Madras, before deciding to lake her son in adoption.
Even according to the plaintiff, the second defendant, the daughter Vijayashrimala was born in the year 1964 and thereafter, the first defendant
Ramesh Jayaram was born in 1966. There is nothing to indicate that in between Lalitha had undergone any operation. There is also no material to
show that the said Lalitha took some special treatment from Doctors to beget child. Therefore, the story of adoption, within two years after
marriage even without resorting to the alleged operation, by the Brahmin parents, that too, from the domestic servant''s family who belong to the
Vanniyar community looks so artificial and improbable.
It is slated by P.W. 1 that the adoption took place in a Homam ceremony. According to her. the Homam was performed by a Brahmin Priest
and in that ceremony the parents of both the parties were present. She would state that her son, the plaintiffs name was originally Rajendran and
that on the date of ceremony, when the Homam was performed, the plaintiffs name was put as Ravichandran. These details of the Homam
ceremony and giving and taking of the son Rajendran in adoption as Ravichandran were not mentioned in the pleadings. Furthermore, before filing
the suit, the legal notices were sent to the defendants as well as to one Lakshmi Nagarajan, who is the aunt of defendants 1 and 2 and in those
notices as well there is no reference about the details of the adoption.
P.W.1 the natural mother and P.W.2, the plaintiff belong to Vanniar community. Ramarathinam and Lalitha Ramarathinam were hailing from an
orthodox Brahmin family. For the first time in the court, P.W. 1 would state that Homam ceremony was performed for giving her son in adoption
to the adoptive parents.
The proviso to Section 11 of the Act prescribes, as indicated earlier, that even the performance of the Honiara is not necessary, but the giving
and taking of the child in adoption is essential. The object of the corporeal giving and taking in adoption is to secure due publicity. To achieve this,
it is essential to have a formal ceremony for a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite, a ceremony imperative in
all adoptions, whatever the caste. The evidence to prove the ceremony of giving and taking should be such that it is free from all suspicions of fraud
and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth.
As held by the Apex Court, the oral evidence of the witnesses deposing about the ceremony of adoption shall be trustworthy and there should
be details of the events in ceremony ending with the usual feast following it. In the ceremony it is very much essential that the natural parent shall
give the child in adoption and the adoptive parent shall declare in the presence of the relatives and friends, who attended the ceremony that they
accepted the child in adoption. As stated earlier, the object of this declaration in the midst of members of both the families is to secure due
publicity. If no such ceremony is performed, then the intention of the parties cannot be gathered.
Moreover, when there is no registered document pertaining to adoption under Sec-lion 16 of the Act, then the Court has to be very cautious
and extremely alert to guard the persons against being ensnared by the unscrupulous persons who indulge in grabbing the properties. Further, as
held by the Apex Court, the plaintiff has to show a heavy duty to prove the ceremony of adoption, in the absence of any registered document to
explain to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court regarding such an adoption by producing accounts to show that there were expenses
incurred due to the ceremony of adoption and by examining the Priest who performed the ceremony.
In the instant case, there is no registered document nor details of the ceremony mentioned in the plaint. Even in the Court. P.W. 1 would not
give any details of the declaration of the giving and taking of her son in adoption. Besides this, the accounts showing the expenditure for the
ceremony were not produced and the Priest who was said to have performed the ceremony was not examined,
The other aspects also could be noticed to hold that the evidence of P.W. 1 is unreliable. According to P.W.1, her husband Munuswamy was
also present at the time of adoption. When a suggestion was put by the counsel for the defendants to P.W. 1 that she was deserted by her husband
Munusamy in Kanchipuram and that thereafter, due to the flood which destroyed the hut in Kanchipuram, she came to Madras and joined as
servant-maid in the family of the defendants, it was denied by her. However, it is to be noted that in the Orphans School record Ex. D29 when the
plaintiff was admitted in the said school in the year 1970 it was mentioned in the school record that the plaintiff''s mother was Saradha who was
deserted by her husband Munusamy long back. If this is true, the adoption by the adoptive parents from Munusamy and Saradha in 1959 would
not have been true.
Moreover, it is the case of P.W. 1 that after adoption in the year 1959, she left the place of the defendants and went to the different area and
that she never came back to sec her natural son. The specific questions and answers put to her in cross-examination are as follows:-
Q: Did you enquire your child after giving in adoption?
A: Thereafter, I have not enquired about my child.
Q: Did you at any point of lime visit the school or college where the plaintiff studied. Do you know where they have given education to him?
A: Thereafter, I never enquired about the plaintiff. I never enquired about the school or college where he studied.
These answers would not be true because in Ex.D22, which is an admission application dated 11.7.1969 relating to the plaintiff in Ramakrishna
Mission High School, P.W.1 Saradha put her thumb impression in the column ''signature of the parent''. In column No. 7, the name of Munusamy
(deserted) as father and name of mother as Saradha, are mentioned in the said application. Therefore, when the plaintiff was aged about 10 years,
he was admitted in the Ramakrishna Mission Boys'' School, T. Nagar by P.W.1. This material would falsify her statement made in her cross-
examination. So, in the light of these things the evidence of P.W. 1 relating to adoption is unreliable and unacceptable. Thus, the plaintiff has failed
to prove through P.W.1 that there was an adoption in the year 1959.
Regarding the proof of valid adoption, it could be viewed in yet another angle. u/s 5(1) of the Act, adoption made in contravention of the
provisions of the Act is void. One of the conditions put u/s 11 (iv) is that when the adoption by the female and the person to be adopted is a male,
the adoptive mother shall be 21 years older than the person to be adopted. Lalitha, the adoptive mother was born on 27.12.1937, as stated by
D.W.1 Lakshmi Nagarajan, the sister of the said Lalitha. There is no dispute with regard to the date of birth of the said Lalitha, as the same date
has been given as the dale of birth in her Passport also. Even according to the plaintiff, as mentioned in the school records, his date of birth is
1.10.1958. According to the plaintiffs case through P.W.1, when the plaintiff was one year old, he was given in adoption to the adoptive parents,
namely, Ramarathinam and Lalitha. So, the age difference between the adoptive mother and the adopted son docs not show that the adoptive
mother is 21 years older than the adopted son. Therefore, it cannot be said, even assuming that adoption is true for the arguments sake, that the
condition No. 4 of Section 11 was complied with. However, on analysing the evidence of P.W. 1, since we come to the conclusion that the
adoption was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, we need not give much importance to this aspect.
As stated earlier, in order to prove the second aspect that he was treated as an adopted son for a long time by the adoptive parents without
any controversy, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 and Exs.P2 to P6 are being relied upon. Ex.P2 is the death certificate relating to Lalitha. Ex.P3 is
the death certificate in respect of Ramarathinam. These exhibits would not be of any use to the plaintiff.
Ex.P4 dated 24.5.1976 is the application for admission in Pre University Course in New College, Madras. The plaintiff would admit in the
cross-examination that this Ex.P4 was filed up by his own handwriting. In the first page he filled up the community column as ''Vanniyar''. Over the
page, in the column ""Name of the father/guardian"" the word father was struck off. It was written by the Plaintiff as V. Ramarathinam in ''guardian''
column No. 8. In column No. 9, the word ''father'' was struck off and the plaintiff himself wrote as guardian by filling up the column by writing the
name of Ramarathinam and his address. In the third page in Guarantee Form attached, Mr. Ramarathinam himself signed in the guardian column
after striking off the word '' parent''. When the plaintiff as P.W.2 was suggested that in page 3 of Ex.P4 under the heading ""Guarantee"" the word
''son'' has been struck off and only the ''ward'' has been retained by Ramarathinam, the plaintiff said ""yes"". Though this document was relied upon
by the plaintiff, it does not indicate that the said Ramarathinam was the adoptive father of the plaintiff. P.W.2 himself would admit that he struck off
the word ''father'' and filled up the guardian column as Ramarathinam. Thus, this document would only show that Ramarathinam was the guardian.
The next document is Ex.P5. This is the register of Our Lady''s Private Kinder Garden Nursery School relating to the year 1962. This
document was marked through P.W.3, a Teacher of that school. In this Register, when the plaintiff Ravichandran was admitted in the school, in the
column of name and residence of parent/guardian, it was filled up as V. Ramarathmam and his address. In this column, since both the words,
namely, parent and guardian are not struck off, it cannot be slated that the said Ramarathinam shall be considered to be the adoptive father,
especially when the word ''guardian'' was not struck off. So, this document also would not be of any use to the plaintiff.
Ex.P6 is the legal notice issued by the third defendant through her Lawyer Mr. Salhiyaseelan, P.W.4 to Lakshmi Nagarajan, the aunt of
defendants 1 and 2, stating that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Ramarathinam. This also does not help the plaintiff, as the third defendant
disowned this Ex.P6 and P.W.4, the Advocate himself would stale that he did not receive any instructions directly from the third defendant.
Thus, none of the exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff would go to show that he was ever treated by Lalitha and Ramarathinam as their
adopted son. As a matter of fact, in most of the documents, as stated earlier, the name of Ramarathinam was mentioned only as guardian. Thus,
the plaintiff has failed to prove either through the oral evidence or through the documentary evidence that he was the adopted son of the parents of
defendants 1 and 2.
On the other hand, the defendants have examined D.Ws. 1 to 7 and filed Exs.D1 to D39 on their side, which would make it obvious that the
plaintiff continues to be the son of Saradha, P. W. 1, the natural mother and that the said (late) Ramarathinam was only a guardian. Let us now
discuss about the relevant exhibits filed on behalf of the defendants one by one.
Ex.D1 is the letter written by Ramarathinam on 2.12.1981 addressed to Tahsildar, T. Nagar, requesting for issuance of Succession Certificate
after the death of his wife Lalitha. In the said letter, he said that his wife had expired on 2.5.1981 leaving behind the undersigned (Ramarathinam),
the daughter by name Vijayashree Mala and son R. Ramesh Jayaram. In this letter he has not mentioned that the plaintiff was his adopted son.
Ex.D2 is the declaration made in the affidavit by the said Ramarathinam and defendants 1 and 2, the daughter and son declaring that they are
the only legal heirs of the deceased Lalitha. This was signed by these three persons on 3.1.1982 which was attested by the Commissioner of
Oaths, High Court. Madras, which was sent to the L.I.C.
Ex.D3 is the invitation for Upanayanam ceremony for the first defendant Ramesh Jayaram, held on 2.3.1975 at T. Nagar, Madras. These
documents were marked through D.W.2 Ramesh Jayaram. the first defendant. In these documents, the name of the plaintiff was never mentioned
as the adopted son or the legal heir of the alleged adoptive parents.
Ex.D7 is the document relating to the assessment of estate duly in respect of the estate of late Lalitha. In the said document also. it is mentioned
that Ramarathinam and his two children, viz., defendants 1 and 2 were the only legal heirs of late Lalitha. The plaintiffs name was not shown in the
said document.
Ex.D15 is the legal notice issued b\ the plaintiff to Lakshmi Nagarajan. the sister of Lalitha, on 3.1.1983. This notice was issued after the death
of Ramarathinam on 23.12.1982. In the said notice, he never mentioned that he was the adopted son of Lalitha and Ramarathinam. Ex.D16 is the
reply dated 17.1.1983 by Lakshmi Nagarajan through Lawyer stating that the plaintiff was not the Kartha and he was only a servant of late
Ramarathinam. Admittedly, there was no rejoinder for this reply notice Ex.D16. These Exs.D15 and D16 were marked through D.W. 1, Lakshmi
Nagarajan.
Ex.D19 is the application for admission in the Corporation Boys'' Higher Secondary School, Madras, where the plaintiff was admitted in VIII
Standard. In the said application, it is mentioned that one Narasimhan was the guardian for Ravichandran, the plaintiff. It is also mentioned that he
was staying with the guardian. In the parent column, the name of Ramarathinam was shown. However, P.W.1 would admit that the said
Narasimhan who was staled to be the guardian was employed as a Clerk in M/s Jayaram Iyer and Company and that the said Narasimhan, who
accompanied the boy to get admission, filled up the particulars in the application form. In the said application form it is also mentioned that the boy
belonged to Hindu Vanniar Community. Admittedly, this was not filled up by Ramarathinam nor his signature was put.
Ex.D20 is the application form for the admission in Government (Board) High School, Nanganallur, when the plaintiff was admitted in VII
Standard. In the column ''religion and caste'', it is filled up as ''Hindu Vanniar"". In the column ''name of parent'' and full address'', it is mentioned as
Saradha (mother), No. 1, Sundarambal Street, T. Nagar, Madras 17. In the bottom of the application in the declaration of date of birth of
Ravichandran, Ramarathinam put his signature as guardian after striking off the word ''parent''. Ex.D21 is the Record Sheet for having studied VI
Standard in Gandhi Mission Vidhyalayam Aided Middle School, Walajahpet. This is dated 27.7.1971. As per this Record Sheet, Ravichandran,
the plaintiff was promoted from VI Standard to VII Standard and he left the school on 27.7.1971. It is mentioned in this that Saradha as mother,
Ramarathinam as guardian and Hindu Vanniar.
Ex.D22 dated 11.7.1969 is the Admission Register issued by Ramakrishna Mission Boys'' High School, T. Nagar, Chennai. In the said
application for admission for VI Standard, it is filled up as the plaintiff was living with guardian and guardian''s name is Ramarathinam. In the
column of ''name of parent'', it is mentioned that Munusamy (deserted) as father and Saradha as mother. In this application over the page, the left
thumb impression of Saradha, natural mother is available in the parent''s column. No doubt, it is true that the name of Lalitha Ramarathinam was
written and the same was struck off. However, this will be of no consequence, especially in the earlier columns, it is filled up that Ramarathinam
was only a guardian. This document has already been referred to in the earlier paragraphs, while analysing the evidence of P.W.1.
Ex.D.24 is the very important document. This is a letter dated 22.11.1981 written by late Ramarathinam addressed to the Inspector General of
Police (Crime), Madras. In this letter he complained against the plaintiff stating that the said Ravichandran, an orphan, son of Saradha and
Munusamy, who was working as a servant in his house had been creating trouble and threatening him and other inmates with the weapons. P.W.1
would admit that the signature found in Ex.D24 is that of Ramarathinam. It is clear from this document that the said Ramarathinam never treated the
plaintiff as an adopted son. The documents Exs.19, D.20, D.21 D22 and D24 were marked through PW2, the plaintiff, while he was cross-
examined.
Exs.D26 is the legal notice issued by the defendants on 6.10.1984. By this notice, the plaintiff was called upon to deliver the vacant possession
of the car shed on or before 1.12.1984. In the said notice, it is stated that the plaintiff was indulging in so many illegal activities in the car shed in the
company of various third parties, thereby causing very great inconvenience and nuisance to the defendants and the members of their family. The
acknowledgement of the said notice is Ex.D27. This would show that the said notice was received by the plaintiff on 8.10.1984. However, there
was no reply for this. This evidence is quite relevant in this contest, since P.W.2, the plaintiff himself would admit that he was arrested by the
Police, while he was exhibiting blue films and witnessing along with his friends in the car shed and in that case he was convicted on plea of guilty.
Ex.D29 is the admission register of Gandhi Mission Vidhyalayam, Walajahpet. In this document, the entries relating to the admission of
Ravichandran, the plaintiff are found. After studying VI Standard in Ramakrishna Mission Boys'' high School, T. Nagar, Chennai, the plaintiff was
taken out and admitted in the said school at Walajahpet. This relates to the academic year 1970-71. In this document, it is mentioned in serial
number 759 that Ravichandran belongs to Vanniar community and his mother is one Saradha, a servant-maid. In the guardian column
Ramarathinam''s name was mentioned. This document was marked through D.W.3, the Head Master of Gandhi Mission Vidhyalaya Middle
School, Walajahpet.
Ex.D31 is the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School, Nanganallur on 15.6.1974, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff was
belonging to Hindu Vanniyar Community. Though the name of Ramarathinam was mentioned in column 2, the word ''parent or guardian'' was not
struck off.
Ex.D32 is the admission register from Nungambakkam Corporation Boys'' High School relating to the plaintiff. In this document, it is
mentioned that the plaintiff belongs to Vanniyar Community and the name of Ramarathinam is found in both the columns ''name of parent'' and
name of guardian. The above documents Exs.D31 and D32 were marked through D.W.4.
Thus, these documents filed on behalf of the defendants would clearly show that the plaintiff was never treated as an adopted son of the
Brahmin parent, and on the other hand, he was considered to be the son of Saradha, the natural mother and belonged to Vanniyar community, that
Ramarathinam was only acting as a guardian and that out of compassion, the plaintiff was educated by putting him in so many schools, despite that
he had not shown progress in'' his studies. As a matter of fact, when a question was put by the Court whether any Upanayanam function was
performed for him by Ramarathinam, he replied to the Court that it was not celebrated by Ramarathinam and that he told him that Upanayanam
would be performed to him and that he did not know why he had not performed that ceremony to him. This would also make it clear that he was
never accepted as an adopted son of Brahmin family.
It is quite appropriate, at this stage, to note that third defendant Rajammal, who is the mother of late Ramarathinam, though originally conceded
the right of plaintiff''s 1/4 share in the properties as adopted son through her notice and first written statement, disowned the notice and the first
written statement stating that she was persuaded by the plaintiff to sign those documents by falsely telling her that she could agitate for her rights, as
defendants 1 and 2 denied to give her share. In fact. the third defendant Rajammal was examined herself as one of the witnesses (D.W.3) and
narrated the circumstances under which she filed the first written statement and emphatically denied that the plaintiff was the adopted son of
Ramarathinam and Lalitha.
These materials, in our opinion, have been properly appreciated and considered in-extenso by the learned single Judge and correct reasonings
have been given in the impugned judgment rejecting the claim of the appellant herein. Therefore, the submission made by Mr. K. Mani the learned
counsel for the appellant, would not, in our view, merit acceptance, as there are overwhelming materials, both oral and documentary to prove that
the appellant was throughout considered as the son of servant-maid and was never treated as an adopted son.
In view of the above finding that the appellant/plaintiff in C.S. No. 502 of 1983 is not the adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha and not
entitled to claim any share in the suit property, it has to be necessarily held that the appellant/defendant in C.S. No. 665 of 1987 has no right to
continue to reside in the car shed, as the permission had already been revoked by the issuance of a legal notice, that consequently the continued
possession of the appellant Ravichandran has to be declared illegal and that therefore, he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation, by
confirming the judgment and decree passed in C.S. No. 665 of 1987.
To Sum Up: (1) Appellant Ravichandran has not proved the adoption by acceptable evidence through P.W.1 Essential ceremony, namely, the
giving and taking in adoption is neither mentioned in the pleadings nor stated in the evidence. The evidence regarding the expenditure incurred for
adoption ceremony by producing account books was not let in. The Priest who was stated to have performed the Homam ceremony was not
examined. The deposition of P.W.1 cannot be stated to be free from suspicious features, as her evidence is contradictory to the documentary
evidence. In the absence of a registered document pertaining to adoption u/s 16 of the Act, the heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the
adoption and the same has not at all been discharged.
(2) Both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties through the witnesses would not prove that the appellant Ravichandran was
treated for a long time as the adopted son without any controversy. On the other hand, the exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff and some of
the admitted documents filed on behalf of the defendants would clearly show that the appellant was never treated as an adopted son and that he
was given education by Ramarathinam as a guardian treating the said Ravichandran as an orphan.
In view of the above conclusions, both the appeals are dismissed with costs. The judgments and decree passed in both the suits are hereby
confirmed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 4767 of 1998 stands dismissed.
* * * * * * * * *
Immediately after we pronounced the Judgment, learned counsel for the appellant sought two months time to vacate the Car Shed in question. On
humanitarian ground, we think it appropriate to grant two months time to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Car Shed in question, without
driving the respondent to execute the decree for taking possession, The appellant shall file an affidavit of undertaking, within One Week from
today, that he shall vacate and deliver vacant possession of the Car Shed in question on or before 20th October, 1998. The Appellant shall not
induct any third parties during this period in the said car shed.