The burden of proving adoption is heavily on the person claiming to be the adopted child. The court must proceed on the basis of probabilities and circumstances when direct evidence is not available. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove adoption and is not entitled to be declared as the legal heir.

Heard both sides.

2. The unsuccessful first defendant in O.S.No.342 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tuticorin is the appellant herein.

3. The first respondent herein filed the above suit for declaration that she is the legal-heir of Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal and for direction directing the first defendant viz., the appellant herein, to hand over all documents and title deeds in respect of the first schedule property and to hand-over the fixed deposit receipts mentioned in the 2nd schedule property and for directing the defendants 2 to 10, who are tenants in the property to pay the rent to the plaintiff. It is stated by the first respondent in the plaint that she was given in adoption to Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal in the year 1963 by her natural parents Chelliah Nadar and Athilakshmi Ammal. The adoption ceremony was held at Thandapathu in Ponvandu Ayyan Kovil according to religious practice when the first respondent/plaintiff was one-and-half years and her natural parents gave her in adoption and Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal accepted the plaintiff by spraying Manchappal in the presence of the family members and since then, she was cared and nursed by Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal. The plaintiffs adoptive father Kasi Nadar worked in Madura Coats and she was educated by Kasi Nadar in Holy Cross Girls Higher Secondary School at Tuticorin and her marriage was celebrated by Kasi Nadar and she was treated as the adoptive daughter of Kasi Nadar by all the relations. Kasi Nadar died in the year 1986 intestate and Muthulakshmi Ammal, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff also died in the year 2000 and the first defendant viz., the appellant herein who was the brother of Muthulakshmi Ammal, after the death of Muthulakshmi Ammal, trespassed into the house where Muthulakshmi Ammal was residing and had taken all the original documents, fixed deposit receipts. Even during the life time of Muthulakshmi Ammal, the appellant assaulted her physically and a complaint was given by Muthulakshmi Ammal against the appellant. As she is entitled to succeed to the property and the first defendant has no right or title over the same, she filed a suit for declaration that she is the legal heir of Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal and for further direction.

4. The first defendant/appellant denied the factum of adoption as stated by the plaintiff/1st respondent and also denied the fact that the plaintiff was given in marriage by Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal and she is the legal-heir of Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal. The appellant further stated that Muthulakshmi Ammal executed a Will, dated 211. 2000 bequeathing the property to him and after her death, on 312. 2000 the property devolved on her as per the Will and therefore, he is entitled to the property.

5. The learned District Munsif, on the basis of the pleadings framed the following two issues:-

1. Whether the will Ex.B6 is valid?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaratory relief as prayed for?

6. The trial Court on the basis of the oral evidence of PW1 to 7 and Exs.A1 to A3, A23, 24, 25 to 27, held that the oral evidence and above documents proved that the plaintiff is the adoptive daughter of Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal and the appellant/first defendant failed to prove the execution of the Will and also held that the Will was not executed by Muthulakshmi Ammal and decreed the suit.

7. The appellant filed the appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.48 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin and the learned Sub Judge also held that the Will was not proved by the appellant and the adoption was proved by the evidence of PW1 to 7 and documents the Exs.A1 to A3, A23, 25 to 27 and held that the plaintiff proved that she is the adoptive daughter of Kasi Nadar and Muthulakshmi Ammal and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful