The central legal point established is that for a valid adoption under Hindu Law, the giving and taking of the child is mandatory, as per Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

(Prayer: This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.04.1993, passed in O.S.No.123 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, North Arcot Ambedkar District.)

The defendants 1 & 2 in O.S.No.123 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ranipet, are the appellants in the above appeal. For the sack of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as putforth in the plaint is as follows:-

The plaintiff is the son of one Ganesan and Thilakam @ Thilajkavathi. The 'A' schedule property and other properties were owned and possessed by the plaintiff's father till his death i.e., on 7.5.1986. The plaintiff's mother died on 02.12.1978. The plaintiff has succeeded to the 'A' schedule property as the sole legal heir of the deceased Ganesan. The plaintiff is being taken care of by his maternal aunt Dr. Vimala Saminthan, the next friend. While alive, the plaintiff's father Ganesan had taken safety locker with the 3rd and/or 4th defendant Bank and has kept his valuables therein. The second defendant is the daughter of the another sister of the plaintiff's mother and she has no manner of right over the 'A' schedule property. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant. The second defendant has been putforth by the first defendant as adopted daughter of Ganesan. But, the second defendant is not the adopted daughter and she was not taken in adoption by the Ganesan. The second defendant was only taken care of by the plaintiff's father and mother as she was an orphan. The defendants 1 & 2 do not have any right over the 'A' schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant in her letter dated 10.08.1986 written to Dr. Vimalasaminathan, sent in response to a lawyer notice, dated 31.07.1986, had admitted that she was only brought up by Ganesan and his wife and the properties of Ganesan will go only to the plaintiff. The first defendant by fraudulent means was claiming right to the suit property by obtaining legal heir certificate. Since the first defendant is attempting to get the contents of the locker of the 3rd and/or 4th defendant-Banks, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 31.07.1986 to the third defendant not to allow the first an second defendants to open the locker. The 3rd and/or 4th defendant are not permitting the plaintiff also to open the locker and they are insisting the plaintiff for production of succession certificate. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 & 2 have trespassed into the 'A' Schedule property after the death of the plaintiff's father. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration of the plaintiff's right over the suit schedule property and for other reliefs.

3. The first defendant has filed a written statement, which has been adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 have denied the allegations contained in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 & 2 that the second defendant is the adopted daughter of the deceased Ganesan and Ganesan died intestate leaving behind his minor son, the plaintiff, and the second defendant as his legal heirs to his estate. Therefore, the second defendant is entitled to an equal share in the suit property. The suit has been filed only at the instance of the next friend. The letter referred in para 7 of the plaint is a fabricated one. The second defendant never tried to open the Bank locker, but the next friend attempted to open the Bank locker and having failed in her attempt, caused the filing of the suit. The allegations that the defendants 1 & 2 have trespassed into the 'A' schedule house is denied and it is stated that the second defendant is living in the house as the daughter of Ganesan. The first defendant, as the husband of the second defendant, is also living with her in the same house. On the above pleadings the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. An ad