IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for an adoption to be valid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, there must be clear and convincing evidence of the actual giving and taking in adoption, which was not demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

[PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 23.08.2016 in A.S.No.260 of 2015 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.1791 of 2013 dated 09.07.2015.]

This present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.260 of 2015, dated 23.08.2016 in confirming the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.1791 of 2013, dated 09.07.2015.

2. O.S.No.1791 of 2013 was presented by the appellant for the relief of declaration that he is the legally adopted son of late Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi and late Arumugam and sought for the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants and persons acting on behalf of the defendants from denying and contending or publishing or sending any communication or submitting any record as against the plaintiff's relationship as the son of the late Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi and late Arumugam. The plaintiff has arrayed the 2nd wife of Arumugam as the 1st defendant and the children born to Arumugam and the 1st defendant, as defendants 2 to 6.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was born on 20.02.1968 to one Muniyandipillai and Sarada Bai. Sarada Bai is the younger sister of the aforesaid Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi. The 1st defendant/Gomathi Bai is her other sister. While the marriage with Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi was subsisting, Arumugam had married the 1st defendant/Gomathi Bai. The plaintiff averred that four months after his birth, he was given in adoption by his biological parents i.e., Muniyandipillai and Sarada Bai to Arumugam and Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi. The latter had brought up the plaintiff as their son giving him that status. They imparted education to him and he studied in the school that was run by the family.

4. According to him, the defendants were creating a situation to send out the plaintiff from the family under the guise of denying the relationship. Their idea is to take out the plaintiff from the administration of the school and consequently, they had written to public authorities to deny the plaintiff's claim to the family. It is pertinent to point out that in the plaint, the plaintiff had stated that Arumugam himself had filed a suit in O.S.No.2245 of 2006 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras challenging the settlement deed that had been executed by Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi in his favour.

5. He further pleaded that all of a sudden after the lapse of about 38 years, the defendants chose to deny his status as the son of Arumugam and Sadhu Sethulakshmi @ Sethulakshmi in order to deprive the relationship, privilege and his role in the family.

6. The 1st defendant/Gomathi Bai entered appearance and had filed a detailed written statement. According to her, the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff is a false one. She said the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit only in order to grab the property of the defendants' family. She further pleaded that the husband of the 1st defendant being an educated member of the family was given due respect by all the members and his name was utilized in all family functions especially ear boring, name swearing, house warming, betrothal, marriage, etc.,.

7. Insofar as the prayer is concerned, her specific pleading was that there was no adoption and the plaintiff cannot claim the status of an adopted son. The 2nd defendant also filed a separate written statement which was adopted by defendants 4 to 6. Even in these written statements also, the adoption was denied.

8. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Judge framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is