IMPORTANT POINT
Adoption under Canon Law requires formal proof of the physical act of giving and taking, which was not established, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

This Regular First Appeal is at the instance of defendant No.1 and additional 6^th defendant in O.S.No.73/2005 on the files of the Principal Sub Judge, Alappuzha and they assail decree and judgment therein dated 30.11.2007.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendant No.1 and additional 6^th defendant, the learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent/1^st plaintiff, learned counsel appearing for additional respondent Nos.8 and 9, and the learned counsel appearing for 6^th respondent/5^th defendant. Perused the pleadings and evidence.

3. The parties in this appeal shall be referred as to their status before the trial court.

4. Plaintiffs, who are siblings of deceased Joseph J.Karuvelil, filed the suit claiming partition of plaint schedule Item Nos.1 to 6 properties belonged to Joseph J.Karuvelil after his death on 9.2.1990 in between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4. Since the 5^th defendant purchased a portion of the plaint schedule property, he also got arrayed as a party in the suit.

5. On appearance, the 5^th defendant filed written statement claiming right on the strength of sale deed No.3168/1995. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were set ex parte.

6. The 1^st defendant filed written statement and opposed the contentions in the plaint. Paragraph No.2 of the written statement reads as under:

The averments in para 1 of the plaint are not fully correct hence denied. The averments that Joseph.J. Karuveli, who is the brother of plaintiffs and defendant 2 to 4, died intestate and issue less is not correct hence denied. He and this defendant jointly submitted an application as OP(G & W) No: 81/1989 before the Hon'ble District Court, Kottayam for appointing First defendant’s husband Joesph.J.Karuveli as the guardian of John @ George, who was under the protection of ST.Joseph's Children's Home, Kummannoor.P.O.Cherpunkal, Kottayam District. In the application in para No:8 the 1^stdefendant and her husband specifically stated that they are preferred to bring up the above said John @ George as their own child with full right of inheritance as a biological child. The Hon’ble District Court of Kottayam accepted the above application and passed an order appointing the above said Joseph.J.Karuveli as the guardian of the above said John @ George. It means the liability is casted upon to Joseph.J.Karuveli and the 1^stdefendant to maintain him as well as to give share over their properties as per law. The above fact is known to the plaintiffs and other defendants. The plaintiffs purposefully suppressed the above facts and filed the above suit. Now the above said John @ George became a major and he is entitled to get his share over plaint properties as per law. So he is a necessary party in this suit and the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

7. Additional 6^th defendant also filed written statement denying rights of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 over the plaint schedule properties and claiming him as the adopted son of Joseph J.Karuvelil and the 1^st defendant.

8. Trial court raised necessary issues. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the defendants. Apart from that, Exts.X1 to X4 also were marked as court exhibits.

9. On a meticulous analysis of the matter, trial court granted preliminary decree for partition after protecting the right of the 5^th defendant in view of Ext.A7 title deed relied upon him.

10. The points arise for consideration are;

1. Whether Canon Law recognizes adoption?

2. What are the essentials to constitute a valid adoption?

3. Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the adoption of 6^th defendant is not proved?

4. Any interference required in the verdict impugned?

5. Reliefs and cost.

11. Point Nos.1 to 5:

While assailing the verdict of the trial court, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and additional defendant No.6 vehemently argued that the trial court went wrong in allowing shares ignoring the right o