SHYAMA SUNDAR PADHI Vs. DHARNIDHAR PADHI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff who succeeded in the trial Court and has lost before the learned Subordinate Judge is the Appellant. He and Bikal were two brothers. The Plaintiff sued for a declaration that the second Defendant who is the natural son of the first Defendant is not the adopted son of the Plaintiff 's deceased brother Bikal. There is a registered deed of adoption dated 27 -4 -1960 (Ext.1). The Plaintiff wanted a declaration from the Court that this deed of adoption was not valid.

(2.) THE question that arose for determination in the Courts below was whether the second Defendant was the adopted Bon of Bikal. The learned trial judge held against the adoption while the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the adoption and has dismissed the suit. The evidence of giving and taking was completely discarded by the trial Court. The learned appellate judge placed reliance on the evidence of d.w. 3, the family priest and drew the presumption available under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to uphold the adoption.

(3.) SECTION 16 of the Act provides: