Adoption is valid if the essential ingredient of physical act of giving and receiving the boy in adoption is present, even if the Datta Homam ceremony is performed at a later date.

LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned single Judge delivered in A. S. Nos. 1850 and 1851 of 1980 and, hence, are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE two suits out of which the appeals arise are -- O. S. No. 322 of 1975 and O. S. No. 60 of 1977. The first suit was filed by the appellants in L. P. A. No. 59 of 1988 i. e. , Pabbathi Reddy Sudarshan Reddy, Pabbathi Reddy Sanjeeva Reddy and Pabbathi Reddy Narayana Reddy as the plaintiffs against the sole respondent -- Pabbathi Reddy Sashire-khamma as the sole defendant. The suit had been filed by them claiming themselves as the purchasers from one Shakuntalamma of the 5/6th share of the plaint b schedule property. Since the claim to the property was based upon the allegation of adoption by Sashirekhamma of Shakuntalamma s first husband-Amrutha Reddy, Sashirekhamma filed second suit -- O. S. No. 60 of 1977 --against Pabbathi Reddy Sanjeeva Reddy as defendant No. 1, Pabbathi Reddy Narayana Roddy as defendant No. 4 and five others viz. , defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for declaration of her being the sole owner of the property and of there being no adoption by her of late Amrutha Reddy. The case of the appellants as plaintiffs was that Sashirekhamma had married one Narayana Reddy, who had predeceased her after giving her authority to adopt a son and she had exercised the authority in favour of Amrutha Reddy, son of an agnate Rami Reddy. Amrutha Reddy had married Shakuntalamma who gave birth, during the wedlock to twins who had died shortly after their birth and thereafter Amrutha Reddy also died. Shakuntalamma executed a registered sale deed -- Ex. A-l on 16-6-1975 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of 5/6th share of the plaint b schedule property. The suit had been filed for partition and separate possession of the property. As earlier stated, the second suit was filed by Sashirekhamma seeking declaration against adoption and of her being the sole owner of the property.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court who tried both the suits and received evidence of both the suits in O. S. No. 322 of 1975, decreed the first suit but dismissed the second one. Sashirekhamma carried appeals against both the decrees, which were registered as A. S. Nos. 1850 and 1851 of 1980 respectively. The appeals having been allowed by the learned single Judge, the present L. P. As. have been preferred. It may be mentioned that so far as O. S. No. 322 of 1975 is concerned, it had been partly decreed by the trial Court holding that Shakuntalamma was entitled only to 1/2 share of the properties as the story of she having been given birth to twins was disbelieved.

( 4 ) THE marriage of Shakuntalamma with Amrutha Reddy being never in dispute, the only question substantially falling for decision is whether Amrutha Reddy had been adopted by Sashirekhamma and whether there was authority in her to make such adoption. While the question was answered in the affirmative by the learned trial Court, the learned single Judge took the reverse view.

( 5 ) THE matter has-been argued at length before us and we have also examined the evidence, both oral and documentary, in detail as the Letters Patent Appeal is one both on facts and law.

( 6 ) A perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge shows the reversing view regarding the adoption to have been taken as the plaintiff did not come with any definite date of adoption, the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 being not acceptable while that of D. W. 1 the respondent was, and the inference from the documents -- Exs. A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5, as had been drawn by the trial Court being not available to be drawn. It is undoubtedly true that strict proof is necessary to prove adoption as adoption, if proved, displaces the natural line of succession. Adoption to be proved necessitates the establishment of the ingredients of adoption, but, as has been observed by Mulla in Sixteenth Edition, Article 512, summarising the decisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document