The central legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, requires proof of custom or usage permitting the adoption of a person over the age of fifteen years.

C.NAGAPPAN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2009 passed in C.S.No.425 of 1998 on the file of this Court, by the learned single Judge. The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit as indigent person seeking for a Declaration that 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belong to him; to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties to him; and to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards the past damages and also future damages at the same rate together with the costs of the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as follows:

(i) Parasurama Chettiar married Kuttiammal and they had no issues. Parasurama Chettiar was running a Maligai shop as well as hardware business at Madras and also doing money lending business and by his own exertions, he acquired number of properties including houses and landed properties. Parasurama Chettiar was having a brother by name Natesa Chettiar. Kuttiammal had three brothers and one sister, namely Arumugam, Natesan, Manickam and Meenakshi, and the plaintiff, who is the son of Manickam, was adopted by Kuttiammal. Natesa Chettiar married Thirupurammal as his third wife and defendants 7 to 13 are their children and defendant No.14 is his widow. Kuttiammal's sister Meenakshi was married to Munusamy Chettiar and the first defendant Elumalai Chettiar is their son and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of Elumalai Chettiar and the fifth defendant is the husband of Mangayarthilakam, one of the daughters of Elumalai Chettiar and the sixth defendant is the son of the fifth defendant.

(ii) The Settlement deed dated 23.6.1961 purported to have been executed by Parasurama Chettiar describing Elumalai as his adopted son is not true. There was no adoption of Elumalai Chettiar by Parasurama Chettiar either in fact or in law. A Revocation deed was also made on 10.3.1967 by way of abundant caution. There was no joint family properties and no joint properties owned by Parasurama Chettiar and Natesa Chettiar and all the properties were the exclusive properties of Parasurama Chettiar. Parasurama Chettiar was becoming aged and taking advantage of the relationship, Natesa Chettiar had brought about a Partition deed dated 25.7.1967 as though there were joint family properties and they were divided between Parasurama Chettiar and Natesa Chettiar and Parasurama Chettiar was to take 1/3 share and Natesa Chettiar was to take 2/3 shares in the properties and the said partition deed is invalid and inoperative.

(iii) Parasurama Chettiar owned a car and the first defendant Elumalai Chettiar was his driver and taking advantage of that, Elumalai Chettiar had created documents to suit his own purpose and made competing claims to the properties of Parasurama Chettiar. Elumalai Chettiar and his children filed a civil suit in O.S.No.76 of 1969 before the Sub-Court, Cuddalore against Parasurama Chettiar, Natesa Chettiar and others claiming 1/2 share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and 1/3 share in 'C' schedule properties. Parasurama Chettiar died on 22.9.1969 and his widow Kuttiammal was impleaded as 11th defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, Elumalai Chettiar seems to have brought about a Will dated 20.9.1969 purported to have been executed by Parasurama Chettiar and the said Will is not true and valid. The suit in O.S.No.76/69 ended in compromise. Elumalai Chettiar and Natesa Chettiar by misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion had induced Kuttiammal to enter into a compromise and as per the compromise, Kuttiammal was to be given Rs.26,000/-and 2 = acres of land each by Natesa Chettiar and Elumalai Chettiar. Since the compromise decree was not registered, it is invalid, inoperative and ineffective. The Will dated 20.9.1969 purporting to deal with Triplicane house property has not been probated and no rights have been claimed under the said Will. The plaintiff as adopted son of Kuttiammal is entitled to