Essentials of a valid adoption lacking.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.:

1. Since the parties as well as the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same and both the suits were tried jointly and judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge in common, these appeals also are being disposed of in a common judgment.

2. O.S.No.47 of 1998 has been filed by the appellant herein challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.502 of 1983, in which the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. O.S.A.No.46 of 1998 by the appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.665 of 1987, in which the appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs.

3. The facts in C.S.No.502 of 1983 (O.S.A.No.47 of 1998) are as follows:

(a) The case of the plaintiff is this: The appellant/plaintiff was adopted by Mr.Ramarathinam and his wife Lalitha in the year 1959 when he was one year old. However, the adoptive parents had given birth to one daughter in 1964, the second defendant and one son in 1966, the first defendant. The adoptive mother of the appellant/plaintiff died in the year 1981 and the adoptive father Ramarathinam also died in the year 1982. After the death, one Lakshmi Nagarajan, the sister of the adoptive mother Lalitha Ramarathinam, who came for the funeral ceremonies of his adoptive father, started giving trouble to him and threw him out of the house by throwing his articles. So, the appellant was forced to reside in the carshed. He approached the defendants 1 and 2 and mother of the adoptive father, defendant No.3 claiming 1/4th share by issuing notice. There was no proper reply. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share.

(b) The case of the defendants is this: The plaintiff was the son of a domestic servant Saradha, working in their house. Ramarathinam educated the plaintiff out of compassion. The plaintiff belongs to Backward Vanniyar community, while Ramarathinam and Lalitha belonged to an orthodox Brahmin community. After the death of the parents, Lakshmi Nagarajan, the maternal aunt of defendants 1 and 2 took care of them and managed the properties on behalf of the minor children. The plaintiff was merely permitted to reside in the carshed because he is the son of the servant-maid of the house and is helping their family by doing errand work. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any partition.

4. The facts in C.S.No.665 of 1987 (O.S.A.No.46 of 1998) could be stated as follows:

(a) The plaintiffs in this suit are the defendants in C.S.No.502 of 1983. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of the said Ramarathinam and Lalitha and the third plaintiff is the mother of the said Ramarathinam. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the carshed from the defendant who is the plaintiff in C.S.No.502 of 1983.

(b) In this suit, the case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

Defendant Ravichandran is the son of a servant-maid in the house of Ramarathinam and Lalitha. The said defendant was educated by them out of compassion taking into account the fact that he was the boy of the servant-maid Saradha employed there and whose father has deserted his mother. Therefore, he was allowed to stay in the carshed. After the death of the parents of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the defendant started giving trouble to the plaintiffs. So, on 6.10.1994 a notice was issued by the plaintiffs revoking the permission and asking to vacate the carshed and leave the place. Since that was not complied with, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for direction to the defendant vacate the suit property and deliver possession and also to pay the damages.

(c) The case of the defendant, as stated in the plaint in C.S.No.502 of 1983 as plaintiff, is that he was adopted by the said Ramarathinam and Lalitha Ramarathinam in the year 1959, that he was brought up and educated by the adoptive parents and as su