The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid adoption to be acted upon, including the physical act of giving and taking the minor in adoption. The burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish his title was also emphasized.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for eviction of licensees and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 21, 1996 passed by the Assistant District Judge, District 24-Parganas (Undivided) in Title Appeal No. 53 of 1995 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated February 28, 1995 passed by the 3rd Court, Learned Munsif, Sealdah, District- 24 Pagranas(Undivided) in Title Suit no. 477 of 1986.

2. One Surendra Nath Mishra was the admitted owner of the premises No. 15 Pravuram Sarkar Lane, Kolkata-700015. The plaintiff claiming to be the adopted son of the said admitted owner filed the said suit for eviction of the defendants from the entire ground floor and one room with one R.T. shed kitchen on the second floor of the said premises, describing them as licensees under him. The defendants are full blood brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the suit also claimed title over the suit premises on the basis of a deed of gift allegedly executed by the said Surendra Nath Mishra.

3. The defendants contested the said suit on a defence that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of the said Surendra Nath Misra, and the deed of adoption on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming title over the suit premises was never acted upon, further defence of the defendants in the said suit was that on the death of the admitted owner of the suit premises, their great grandfather, they have acquired right, title and interest over the suit property as co-sharers thereof.

4. The learned Trial Judge, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

"1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

2. Are the defendants licensees over the suit property or are living there on their own right?

3. Is the plaintiff, the adoptive son of Suren? If so, is the exclusive owner of suit property?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

5. To what other reliefs, if any is the plaintiff entitled?"

5. The plaintiff in the suit deposed as P.W.1 and cited another witness to prove the ceremonies performed at the time of adoption of the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved the deed of adoption dated June 18, 1948 as Exhibit. 1, the tax receipt of the said premises issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation as Exhibit. 2, the certificate issued by the Head Master of Buthnath Mahamaya Institution, the school of which the plaintiff was a student as Exhibit. 3, the affidavit affirmed by the biological father of the plaintiff on June 18, 1960 as Exhibit.4, the record of rights of some lands as Exhibit. 5, a sale deed executed by the plaintiff on December 12, 1961 as Exhibit. 6 and the certificates issued by the Chief Operating Manager of the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd., the erstwhile employer of the plaintiff as Exhibit. 7(series).

6. The defendants on the other hand cited four witnesses including the biological mother of the parties. The defendants proved the death certificate of Surendra Nath Misra as Exhibit. A, two trade licenses, one in the name of the Karunamoy Misra and other in the name of the plaintiff as Exhibits.B and B1 respectively, one letter issued by the Head Master of the aforesaid School authorising one Maniklal Pal to depose in the suit to prove the fees register of the said school for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 as Exhibit. C and the appointment agreement of the plaintiff in the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd. as Exhibit. D.

7. The said deed of adoption since was executed in the year 1948, i.e. prior to the commencement of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, both the Courts below, in deciding the issue involved in the suit placed reliance on different sections under Chapter XXIII of Mulla on principles of Hindu Law.

8. The biological mother of the plaintiff deposed in the suit as D.W.1. She in her evidence stated that she never gave the plaintiff in adoption as he was her eldest son. The learned Trial Judge held that since under the old H