The standard of proof required for establishing an adoption is strict and severe, and the evidence must be beyond suspicion and of unimpeachable character.

VIMADALAL. J.- Thi5 is an appeal filed by original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, passing a decree for possession ill favour of the plaintiff who is the first respondent before us. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are, that the first defendant, who is the son of the second defendant, was born on the 18th of October 1940. The date of birth of the first defendant has not been disputed before us, in view of the entry Ex. 93 in the Birth Register which has been produced in the trial Court. The plaintiff is the widow of one Anna who was the brother of the second defendant and, therefore, the paternal uncle of the first defendant. The first defendant claims to have been adopted by the said Anna, who bad no children, on the 25th of January 1959 when, according to the first defendant, the necessary adoption ceremony was performed in the presence of several persons, and an Adoption Yadi was also prepared and executed. Anna died on the 13th of July 1961, and it is the case of the first defendant that he has thereafter enjoyed exclusively the properties of Anna. It IS also the case of the first defendant that on the 6th of October 1961, which would be less than three months after the death of Anna, a Deed of Consent Ex. 94 was executed and registered by the plaintiff at Miraj. On the 20th of January 1962 and on the 2nd of May 1962 mutations were effected in the revenue records which are Exs. 97 and 98 in the proceedings in the trial Court, whereby all the immoveable properties left by Anna were transferred in those records to the name of the first defendant as his adopted son. It may be mentioned that two separate mutations were effected because the immoveable properties of the said Anna were situated in two different villages, viz., in the village of the Walva and Bavachi. It may also be mentioned that, though the mutations entries themselves have been produced, the original applications in consequence of which those entries were effected in the revenue records have not been produced.

2. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant's claim to be the adopted son of Anna is entirely false as no such adoption had ever taken place. The plaintiff's case further is that, she being an illiterate lady, shortly after the death of Anna she was taken to Miraj, ostensibly for medical treatment, where her thumb mark was obtained on some document which it now turns out was the' Deed of Consent. The first defendant having, according to the plaintiff, wrongfully taken possession of all the immoveable properties of the deceased Anna situated in the villages of Bavachi as well as Walva, she had to file the present suit, which she did on the 28th of November 1968.

3. On these facts, the parties went to trial in the lower Court in which all the issues framed by the learned trial Judge were answered in favour of the plaintiff as against defendant No. 1. It may be mentioned that, or the other panes to the suit, the second defendant is the father of the first defendant, whereas the third defendant is the brother of the first defendant to whom the first defendant had purported to rent out some of the lands belonging to the deceased. It may also be mentioned that the 4th defendant to the suit is a Co-operative Bank from which a roan was taken by the first defendant on the security of some of the lands of the deceased, Anna, but it is not disputed that the said mortgage debt has been satisfied. The trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit as against tae 4th defendant Bank, and I do not think it necessary to deal with the same since no appeal from that order of dismissal is before us.

4. Three questions really arise in this appeal and have been argued before us, and they are, (1) whether, in view of the provisions of sections 4 and 10 (iv) read with section 3 (a) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, it is open to the first defendant to prove that