Bhandari, J.—This is a civil second appeal by Gyarsiram defendant against whom Shivram plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that he was the adopted son of the defendant and that the defendant had no tight to cancel the adoption. Gyarsiram died during the course of pendency of the appeal in this Court and his widow Mst. Ilaichi has been brought on record as appellant.

2. Shivram plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, on the 25th of March, 1949. He alleged that he had been adopted by the defendant on the 21st June, 1957, and ceremonies relating to adoption were duly performed and that since the date of adoption he had been residing with the defendant. The defendant also executed the adoption deed on the 7th August, 1947, which was registered on the 30th August, 1947. The defendant executed a deed of revocation on the 7th March, 19+9 which has given cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration. The defendant pleaded that he and never adopted Shivram and had not performed any ceremonies with regard to the adoption. The adoption deed mentioned in the plaint was got executed undue influence and fraud exercised by Shamsunder father of the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove that giving and taking had taken place at the time of the performance of the ceremonies of adoption. The plaintiff went in appeal to the court of the Additional District Judge, Jaipur. The learned Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff was duly adopted by the defendant. He accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal on behalf of defendant Gyarsiram.

3. It is not seriously disputed in this appeal that certain ceremonies relating to adoption took place on the 21st June, 1947. In the trial court it was argued on behalf of the defendant that even if it be taken as proved that certain ceremonies did take place at the time of adoption, still the adoption was neither complete nor valid as giving and taking of the plaintiff in adoption had not taken place which was essential for a valid adoption. The same argument was repeated in the first appeal before the learned District Judge. I have to determine whether what had taken place on the 2lst June, 1947 was sufficient in the eye of law to hold that the plaintiff had been adopted by the defendant. Laxminaram P.W. 1 was the head priest at the time of the performance of the ceremonies on that date and two other priests were Govindnarain, P. W. 2, and Kanahiyalal, P.W. 3. There are other witnesses also who were present at the ceremonies. They are Kesarlal. P. W. 5, Gorishankar, P. W. 7, Shamsunder, natural father of the plaintiff, P. W. 8 and Shivram, P. W. 9, plaintiff himself.

4. Laxminarain P. W. 1 deposed that he was the Acharaya at the adoption ceremony and that the natural father of the plaintiff Shamji had given the plaintiff to Gvarsiram. defendant, after performing Horn Sankalap and Gyarsiram had taken Shivram, plaintiff. Havan Pujan was also performed. In cross-examination the witness deposed that Vedi was constructed and various Gods were worshiped and later on Havan was performed and that he had officiated as priest in a number of Dattak ceremonies during the last five or seven years, Govindram, P.W. 2, stated that Dattak ceremony of the plaintiff was performed and that Shamsunder, father of the plaintiff, had given the plaintiff in adoption to Gyarsiram. Shamsunder had given Sankalap of Dattak while Gyarsiram accepted the Sankalap. The same is the statement of Kanahiyalal, P. W. 3 Shamsunder, P. W. 6, natural father of the plaintiff, corroborated the statement of the priest, In cross-examination, he stated as follows :—

"The ceremony of Dattak and Havan was performed at the time of adoption. Pandit performed the Dattak. By Datak I mean that Pujan was performed in accordance w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document