The ceremony of giving and taking is essential for the validity of an adoption.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer dated October 27, 1953, confirming the judgment of the District Judge, Ajmer, and setting aside that of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Ajmer, in Civil Suit, No. 48 of 1944.

2. The following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the contentions of the parties :

It is not necessary to give the other branches of the genealogical tree. It will be seen from the genealogy that plaintiff Lakshman Singh s grandfather, Sobhag Singh, is defendant Moti Singh s paternal uncle. In the year 1923, Sujan Singh was aged about 70 years, and Moti Singh was about 50 years, and Moti Singh s wife, Rup Kanwar alias Rup Kanwar Bai, the respondent herein, who was subsequently brought on record in place of Moti Singh after his death, was abut 45 years old. Moti Singh had no son and, therefore, Sujan Singh was anxious to have a boy well-versed in vedic-lore to be adopted to his son Moti Singh to perpetuate his line. One February 14, 1923 the plaintiff was brought from his father s house to the house of Sujan Singh in Ajmer by one Hira Lal and left there. On March 28, 1923, the plaintiff was admitted as a student in an institution called Gurukul Kangri. He was educated in that institute from the year 1923 to 1936. On March 19, 1936, after completing his studies in the Gurukul, the plaintiff came back to Moti Singh s house. As he was not accorded the treatment expected of an adoptive father to an adopted son, he grew apprehensive of the intentions of Moti Singh and filed Civil Suit No. 48 of 1944 against Moti Singh in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge, First Class, Ajmer, for a declaration of his status as an adopted son of the defendant Moti Singh. Moti Singh in his written statement denied that the plaintiff was his adopted son and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge, on evidence, held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the defendant and that the suit was not barred by limitation. On appeal, the District Judge, on a review of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was never in fact adopted by the defendant and that the ceremony of "giving and taking" did not take place. He further found that the suit was within time. On second appeal, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, accepted the findings of the learned District Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Judicial Commissioner has not correctly appreciated the ingredients of the ceremony of "giving and taking" and that he should have held that Hira Lal s bringing of the boy at the instance of his natural father to the house of Sujan Singh, and Moti Singh receiving the boy by putting his hand on his head were sufficient compliance with the Hindu Law doctrine of "giving and taking" and, therefore, the adoption was valid.

4-6. Before adverting to the legal aspect of the question raised, it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain clearly the relevant facts in regard to the alleged handing over of the plaintiff-appellant by his natural father to the adoptive father. (His Lordship adverted to these facts, considered the oral and documentary evidence and concluded : )

We, therefore, hold, on the evidence, oral and documentary, that Sujan Singh and Moti Singh wanted to take the plaintiff in adoption either after the boy was admitted in Gurukul or after he finished his education therein that Hira Lal, on the requrest of the plaintiff s father, accompanied the boy to Sujan Singh s house at Ajmer and left him there, that Moti Singh welcomed the boy as was expected of him and thereafter sent him to Gurukul and that no formal ceremony of "giving and taking" had taken place.

7. Even so, it was contended that the fact that Zalim Singh sent the plaintiff through Hira Lal to Moti Singh s house and that Moti Singh received him in his house would be sufficient c