M SRINIVASAN Vs. JOHN BENTIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) App 952 of 1980 : The vital issue in this case relates to the claim of the plaintiff-appellant that he is the adopted son of deceased Kumaravelu. The first defendant in the suit is admittedly the wife of Kumaravelu. Defendants 2 and 3 were purchasers of certain properties from the first defendant. The third defendant died pending suit and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 4 to 12. Pending the appeal, the first defendant-first respondent died. The plaintiff-appellant filed an application for recording him as the legal representative of the deceased first respondent and that was dismissed. The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal. It is stated that the appellate Bench directed the matter to be considered at the time of the final disposal of the appeal. The second defendant-second respondent also died pending, the appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 12 to 16.

(2.) The plaintiff relies on Exs.A-9, A-19, A-20, A-17, A-18 and A-8 in support of his case of adoption. The oral evidence consists of the depositions of the plaintiff himself as P.W. 1, his natural father as P.W. 2, an aunt of Kumaraswami as P.W. 3 and the plaintiff's wife's uncle as P.W. 4.

(3.) Before dealing with the evidence regarding adoption, reference has to be made to the pleadings. In the plaint, it is stated that the said Kumaravelu adopted the plaintiff as his adopted son from his childhood and brought him up and celebrated his marriage and gave presents to the plaintiff. It is also stated that the plaintiff was living with his adoptive father Kumaravelu and adoptive mother, the first defendant, as one Hindu undivided family. There is also reference in the plaint to a power of attorney stated to have been given by Kumaravelu to the plaintiff for managing the properties and collecting the rents and paying taxes. It is alleged that the plaintiff was doing the same and managing the estate of Kumaravelu as power agent. Significantly, the plaint does not mention even the date of adoption. No details with regard to the adoption are set out in the plaint. No reference is made to any ceremony having been performed for adoption. There is also no allegation that there was a formal giving and taking.