KARUNAKAR RANSINGH AND OTHERS Vs. KUNTALA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant nos.1, 2 and 4 are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs-Respondent nos.1 to 4 instituted the suit for declaration that the defendant no.1 is not the adopted son of defendant no.3 and plaintiff no.1 and certain other ancillary reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 is the wife of defendant no.3. Plaintiff nos.2 to 4 and defendant no.2 are the daughters of defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 has no male issue. To look after the property, defendant no.3 wanted to keep a person as illatom son-in-law. He approached the father of the defendant no.1.

(3.) The defendant nos.1, 2 and 4 filed written statement. The case of the defendants was that after birth of the youngest daughter, Basanta, plaintiff no.3, the defendant no.3 and plaintiff no.1 lost their hopes of begetting a male issue. They thought to adopt a child to perpetuate the line of succession. Defendant no.3 requested the natural father of defendant no.1 for the said purpose. Defendant no.1 was adopted by the defendant no.3 on Sri Panchami day of Magha, 1967. There was giving and taking ceremony in the presence of priest, relatives and village gentry. Since then, he lived with the adoptive parents. At the instance of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.3, his father's name was changed in the school admission register. He is an employee of Railway. In his service record, he has been described as the son of defendant no. In the voter's list, he had described as the son of defendant no. His adoptive parents performed his marriage with the defendant no.2. The defendant no.3 had executed a deed acknowledging adoption in favour of defendant no.1. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, the defendant no.4-appellant no.3 died. The legal heirs have been substituted.