LAKSHMIDHAR SATAPATHY DEAD Vs. LINGARAJ SATAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court dated 23-1-1984 passed in Title Appeal No. 120 of 1984. By the impugned judgment, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 8-9-1981 passed in Title Suit No. 396 of 1978.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :-The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, filed the suit for declaration that he is the adopted son of Padmanava Satapathy and that defendant-respondent No. 1 Lingaraj Satapathy was never taken in adoption by the said Padmanava Satapathy. According to the plaintiff, late Padmanava Satapathy, having remained without any issue for a long time after the death of his only daughter, decided to adopt a son with a view to perpetuate the line of succession. Therefore, he requested the father of the plaintiff, namely, Nisamani Satapathy, to give the plaintiff in adoption to him, which was accepted. On a Sripanchami day in the month of Magh, according to the plaintiff, the adoption took place and there was giving and taking ceremony. Padamanava, the adoptive father of the plaintiff, performed his Upanayan ceremony when he was nine years old. The marriage of the plaintiff was also performed when he was 21 years old by late Padamanava Satapathy. The plaintiff helped Padmanava Satapathy in discharging priestly duties and in agricultural operations. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 2, Indramani Satapathy, was not related to Padmanava Satapathy, but being a close neighbour and with an eye on the property of Padmanava Satapathy started instigating Padmanava against the plaintiff. Padmanava died in the year 1971 and the plaintiff performed his last funeral rites. During the settlement operations, defendant No. 2 tried to get the properties of Padmanava recorded in the name of defendant No. 1, for which the plaintiff had to raise objection. Defendant No. 2, for the first time, preferred a deed before the Assistant Settlement Officer alleging that it was executed by late Padmanava acknowledge adoption of defendant No. 2 as his son. Relying on the said document, the Settlement Officer recorded the lands of Padmanava in the name of defendant No. 1 in his capacity as the adopted son. It has been pleaded that the deed in question is a fraudulent one. As the existence of the said deed affects the rights of the plaintiff over the landed property of his adoptive father Padmanava, he was compelled to file the suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2. They filed a joint written statement. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was never taken in adoption by Padmanava. Padmanava had two daughters through his wife Gouri Devi. Both of them died unmarried. In 1940, the last daughter died and thereafter Gouri also died. According to the defendants, Manguni, Chintamani and Nisamani were brothers and the plaintiff is the only son of Nisamani. Plaintiff lost his mother when he was child. Nisamani thereafter left for Rangapur in East Bengal where he was serving as a cook. He died there unnoticed by his relatives. Plaintiff remained under the care and custody of Manguni and Chintamani. They wanted to appropriate the share of Nisamani in the ancestral property to the exclusion of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came of age, they sent him to Mirjapur where he is living as the illatum son-in-law of Managovind Misra. Taking advantage of the fact that Padmanava had no male issue, Maguni and Chintamani described the plaintiff as the adopted son of Padmanava in some documents. According to the defendants, defendant No. 2 is an agent of Padmanava, who took defendant No. 1 in adoption as son when defendant No. 1 was three days old. The formal ceremony of giving and taking took place on the 21st day after the birth of defendant No. 1. On 26-11-1968 Padmanava executed the registered deed acknowledging the adoption of defendant No. 1 as his son. In the same year also, he performed the Upanayan ceremony of defendant No. 1. Thereafter, he acted as the father and guardian of defendant No. 1 for all purposes till his death. It has been stated that the sons of Naguni and Chintamani grew jealous and did not like defendant No. 1 to stay in the house of Padmanava. Therefore, defendant No. 2 came and kept defendant No. 1 with him. The adoption of the plaintiff by Padmanava as son in the year 1929 has been denied as also his Upanayan and marriage ceremony, as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Padmanava. He remained in possession of the properties belonging to Padmanava and got the same recorded in his name in the settlement operation and the lands of Nisamani have been recorded in the name of the plaintiff as his son. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff was always residing in the house of his father-in-law and he never possessed the land of Padmanava.