Validity of adoption of persons over 15 years of age.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate court has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, reversing the judgment of the District Munsif, Devakottai.

2. The case of the appellant-plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, who filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is briefly as follows: One M.A. Meyyappan Ambalam was the common ancestor and he is the grandfather of the plaintiff. The said M.A. Meyyappan Ambalam had got two sons M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam and M.A.M. Meyyappan Ambalam, the second defendant herein. M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam has got three sons and the plaintiff is the second son of the said M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam and he was born on 17.5.1943. The second defendant married one Meenakshi as his first wife in 1943 who died in or about 1945 due to small box. When the said Meenakshi got affected with small pox, she wanted the plaintiff to be adopted to herself and the second defendant as he had no issues, and further, she apprehended that she would die soon. The plaintiffs grandfather M.A. Meyyappan Ambalam desired such adoption so that all the monies and properties should be equally divided between the two families.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that his father expressed the view that the plaintiff should be the son of both the families and the contemplated adoption should be as Dwayamushyayana. Accordingly the adoption took place in 1945 in the presence of the family members and with consent of the pangalis by actual giving and taking. Accordingly the plaintiff became the son of both the natural father as well as the adopted father, the second defendant. Some time later, the adoptive mother Meenakshi died and the plaintiff performed her obsequies.

4. About a year or two thereafter, the second defendant married the third defendant. In the meantime the grandfather M.A.M. Meyyappa Ambalam also expired. The natural father of the plaintiff and the adoptive father, the second defendant became divided by means of a registered partition deed dated 29.4.1949. In the said partition deed, the plaintiff was shown as the son of the natural father and he was represented by his natural father. It is stated that though the plaintiff is not made a eo nominee party, the second defendant is the trustee for the plaintiffs share also so far as the share allotted to the second defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant have not divided the properties so far. The second defendant has also no issues through his second wife, the third defendant. The second defendant's eye sight was affected and he was ailing. Taking advantage of the same, the relatives of the third defendant hatched a plan to knock off the properties of the second defendant and with the above object, they arranged to adopt the first defendant who is the son of the third defendant's sister, the fifth defendant ignoring the adoption of, the plaintiff. After coming to know of the same on or about 1.2.1984 they have fixed 6.2.1984 as the date of adoption, the plaintiff questioned the pangalis who stated that the proposal was true and that they would not participate in the same and that they would support the stand taken by the plaintiff who was already the adopted son the second defendants. The defendants did not pay heed to the words of the plaintiff and they determined to proceed with the adoption. All the efforts of the plaintiff to prevent the proposed adoption would be of no avail. Hence, filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from adopting the first defendant and also restraining defendants 4 and 5 from giving in adoption the child on 6.2.1984 or any other date declaring the alleged adoption of the first defendant on 3.2.1984 as not true and legal.

5. The said suit was resisted by the second defendant and he filed a written statement wherein he admitted the relationship of parties and conten