Physical act of giving and taking is an essential ingredient/requisite for a valid adoption.

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.57 of 85 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, against the dismissal of their suit filed for declaration, delivery of possession, injunction, and for accounting, preferred the above appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in their plaint is briefly stated hereunder: The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to Arumugha Mudaliar. His wife is Unnamalai Ammal. They had two daughters and a son by name Mangalam, Saraswathi and Jayasubramanian. Mangalam died about 15 years back. Her son is first defendant, whose son is second defendant. Saraswathi is the second plaintiff, whose son by name Senthilkumar is the first plaintiff. Unnamalai died 20 years back. Arumugha Mudaliar executed a deed of power of attorney in favour of the first defendant on 18.12.8 2, as he was unable to manage his affairs. Thereafter, it was duly revoked on 17.7.84 by means of a registered deed as Arumugha Mudalair was fit to manage his affairs. Arumugha Mudaliar’s only son Jayasubramanian died without any issues in August, 1982 leaving behind him his widow Saroja Ammal, 3rd defendant as his heir.

3. Since Arumugha Mudaliar had no male issues, he adopted the first plaintiff, his daughter’s son according to Hindu sastras on 18.8.84 after following all the rituals. There was proper giving and taking of the boy according to sastras. Evidencing the adoption, a registered deed was executed and as per the same, all the properties of Arumugha Mudaliar, he is entitled to a half share and the adopted son to the other half share.

4. On 20.8.84 Arumugha Mudaliar executed a settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of the properties not mentioned in the suit schedule and they are in possession of the plaintiffs. The said deed was duly executed, validly attested and acted upon. 5. On 11.10.84, Arumugha Mudaliar executed a Will in respect of all the properties immoveables and moveables that belonged to him. It was duly executed, validly attested and executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. It was the last Will and testament of the deceased. As per the terms of the Will, the first plaintiff is absolutely entitled to the properties in Schedule A and B of the Will, while 2nd plaintiff is entitled to the properties described in Schedule C to the Will. The properties that have been bequeathed to the first plaintiff are described in B schedule to the plaint and properties bequeathed to the 2nd plaintiff are described in C schedule to the plaint. Movables described in the E schedule of the plaint belong to the first plaintiff as per the Will. 6. For about 2 months prior to his death, Arumugha Mudaliar was suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes and kidney trouble. He was staying with the 2nd plaintiff in her house at Jayapuram colony. Thereafter, Arumugha Mudaliar was taken to Pullichapallam and was looked after by the second plaintiff and her husband who were staying with them. Three days prior to his death, he lost his consciousness and was in a comatic stage till he died on 14.1.85 at 2.00 P.M. The news of his death was informed to eve ry body including the first defendant. A week after Arumugha Mudaliar’s death, 2nd plaintiff and her husband went to their house at Jayapuram colony to look into state of things there. When they returned, first defendant refused to allow 2nd plaintiff and her husband inside the house. 7. First defendant issued a notice on 23.1.85 to the 2nd plaintiff and Saroja setting up a Will dated 13.1.85 said to have been executed by Arumugha Mudaliar. The second plaintiff waited for an amicable settlement. As nothing was fructified, she issued a reply on 17.7.85. After the revocation of the power of attorney deed on 17.7.84, after the adoption of first plaintiff on 18.8.84, in favour of the first plaintiff and after the registered Will dated 11.10.84, it is unnatural to expect Arumugha Mudaliar to execute a unregistered Will in