.1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.738 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court at Madurai dated 2. 1994. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The suit is filed for partition by metes and bounds of the schedule mentioned properties and allot separate possession of 3/4th share in them to the plaintiff.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

4. The suit property belonged to one Mani alias Karuppana Pillai. The 1st defendant is the wife of the said Mani alias Karuppana Pillai (hereinafter called as Karuppana Pillai). He died issueless. While he was alive, he adopted the plaintiff and there was a ritual of adoption between the adopted parents and the biological parents of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was given in adoption and the said Karuppana Pillai took him as adopted son in an auspicious day in Arulmighu Muthiah Koil at Kochadai. From the date of adoption, the plaintiff was living with the adopted parents. The plaintiff was treated as a member of joint family and he became entitled to the properties along with the adoptive father. Item Nos.1 to 7originally belonged to one Irulappa Pillai, the cousin of Karuppana Pillai. One Parvathiammal, the 2nd wife of Irulappa Pillai became entitled to the properties and she bequeathed the properties to the said Karuppana Pillai under a Will dated 280. The rest of the suit properties are self acquired properties of Karuppana Pillai. On the death of Karuppana Pillai, the attitude of the 1st defendant viz., the adopted mother, changed on the ill-advice of her younger brother, who is the 2nd defendant.Even during the lifetime of Karuppana Pillai, the 1st defendant started living away from her husband. In order to confirm the adoption, Karuppana Pillai executed a registered adoption deed on 7. 1982.Karuppana Pillai died on 1. 1989 leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as his only legal heirs. One Mariyayee filed a suit in O.S.No.311 of 1982 against Karuppana Pillai and others in respect of the joint family properties. On the death of Karuppana Pillai, the 1st defendant was recognised as the legal heir and the plaintiff was not impleaded as party. The 1st defendant colluded with the plaintiff and a decree was passed and the decree is not binding on the plaintiff. One Ganesan filed a suit in O.S.No.685 of 1988 against Karuppana Pillai. On the death of Karuppana Pillai, an application to implead the legal heirs was filed and the 1st defendant opposed impleading the plaintiff as legal heir. However, the petition was allowed. Therefore, the adoption of the plaintiff stood confirmed. The plaintiff is entitled to + share in the joint family property along with his father and after the death of Karuppana Pillai, he is entitled to + share in the + share of the adopted father along with the 1st defendant. Therefore, in total, the plaintiff is entitled to _ share in the suit property. Therefore, the suit is filed for partition.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants and the 1st defendant as well as the 7th defendant filed a detailed written statement. The sum and substance of the written statement is as follows:

.6. The alleged adoption of the plaintiff by Karuppana Pillai was denied. The alleged giving and taking of adoption before the Arulmighu Muthiah Koil at Kochadai was also denied. According to the defendants, there was no adoption of the plaintiff by Karuppana Pillai. The alleged registered adoption deed was also denied. It is stated that the said Karuppana Pillai had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiffs father Raju Pillai in the year 1982 and as security he was insisted to execute a registered mortgage deed and his thumb impression was obtained in blank papers.

.Therefore, the execution of adoption deed was also denied.

7. According to the 7th defendant, the suit items 1 to 5 originally belonged to one Ramu Pillai and 6 and 7 belonged to Irulappa Pillai. Ramu Pillai had one son viz., Irulappa