The legal principle established is that for a valid adoption under Hindu Law, the actual giving and taking ceremony is mandatory, and specific pleadings satisfying the legal requirements must be supported by acceptable evidence.

(Prayer: This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 14.03.1991, passed in O.S.No.485 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.)

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.no.485 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem, is the appellant in the above appeal. For the sack of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking partition of the suit properties into four equal shares and for allotment of three shares to him and for permanent injunction against the defendant from in any way encumbering or alienating the suit properties.

3. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the plea that he was adopted by the husband of the defendant viz, Muthu Gouder and the defendant on 17.4.1978. The plaintiff is none other than the son of the brother of the defendant's husband. According to the plaintiff, while the said Muthu Gounder was alive there were ancestral properties and the same had been sold by Muthu Gounder, his parents and Muthu Gounder's brother Natesan and from that amount Muthu Gounder carried on Real Estate business and out of the huge amount earned by Muthu Gounder, he purchased landed properties in his name and in the name of the defendant and he also had cash on hand. The said Muthu Gounder died intestate on 14.09.1985 and the plaintiff performed obsequies ceremonies of Muthu Gounder.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that out of the amount left by Muthu Gounder, the defendant had purchased a house property, which is shown as Item No.1 in the suit schedule, in the name of the defendant and the plaintiff claimed that he was residing with the defendant. Further, the defendant had insured with the pearless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd, and in that Insurance Policy, the defendant had nominated the plaintiff and mentioned him as her son. Due to misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was making hectic attempts to dispose off the suit properties. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant filed a suit against one Rathinasabapathi for recovery of Rs.25,000/- borrowed by him from Muthu Gounder and the plaintiff claims 3/4th share in the amount due from the said Rathinasabapathi. Since the defendant is not agreeable for the partition, the suit has been filed.

5. The defendant by filing a detailed written statement contested the suit, inter-alea contending that the claim of adoption of the plaintiff by the defendant and her husband is false; the plaintiff was not under the care and custody of Muthu Gounder and the plaintiff was not a member of the joint family; the factum of nominating the plaintiff in the Peerless Policy does not give the plaintiff the status of a son; there were disputes between the brothers and Muthu Gounder which obliged Muthu Gounder to give a release deed to Natesan, father of the plaintiff; the parties were not in good terms after 1972 and therefore the averment that the plaintiff was given in adoption is untrue. The defendant has further contended that Muthu Gounder did not possess any ancestral property at all and the alleged earnings and purchase of properties are denied by the defendant; the plaintiff did not perform the obsequies ceremonies of Muthu Gounder; the amount due from Rathinasabapathi belongs to the defendant only and Muthu Gouder never purchased properties in the name of the defendant; the property was purchased only by the defendant out of the amounts given by her family members. It is further contended that the house property described in the suit schedule was not purchased from out of the funds of Muthu Gounder and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties. On the above pleadings the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The trial Court framed the following five issues:

i) Whether the claim of the plaintiff that he was adopted by the Defendant and her deceased hus