IMPORTANT POINT
A valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act cannot be cancelled, and a registered adoption deed carries a presumption of validity unless disproven. Additionally, the burden of proof lies on the party claiming under a will to establish its validity.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Sakthivel, J.) :

(Prayer In S.A.No.1534 Of 2002: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2002 passed in A.S.No.25 of 2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.262 of 1991 by the learned District Munsif, Mettur.)

(Prayer In S.A.No.1535 Of 2002: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2002 passed in A.S.No.43 of 2001 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.68 of 1998 by the learned District Munsif, Mettur.)

These Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated March 26, 2002, passed in A.S.No.25 of 2001 and A.S.No.43 of 2001 by the 'learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity] confirming the common judgment and decree dated April 23, 2001 passed in O.S.No.262 of 1991 and O.S.No.68 of 1998, by the 'learned District Munsif, Mettur' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity].

2.The appellants no.(1) to (4) herein are the defendants no.(1) to (4) in O.S.No.262 of 1991 and O.S.No.68 of 1998. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the said Suits. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the Suits.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

3.1. The suit properties were ancestral properties allotted to R.S.Kandasamy in a partition among his brothers. On and after the said partition, R.S.Kandasamy was enjoying the suit properties. R.S.Kandasamy married the first plaintiff namely, Sivagamiammal according to their caste customs and rituals in the year 1943. Hence, the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Late R.S.Kandasamy. No children were born to the couple. Hence, the first plaintiff and R.S.Kandasamy decided to adopt a son. On December 2, 1981, first plaintiff Sivagamiammal and R.S.Kandasamy jointly adopted the second plaintiff as their son. Thereafter, R.S.Kandasamy passed away on May 2, 1990, at Salem. He was buried in the Suit properties. The second plaintiff, being the adopted son of R.S.Kandasamy performed all the final rites of Late R.S.Kandasamy. After the demise of R.S.Kandasamy, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit properties and they started enjoying the estate of R.S.Kandasamy.

3.2. The first defendant was a Commercial Tax Officer working in Tondiarpet Division Commercial Tax Office, Madras. His father name is Arockiasamy. Second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit properties. On May 20, 1990, the defendants came to the suit properties and made attempts to trespass into the suit properties. The defendants are strangers to the suit properties. The plaintiffs with the help of relatives and neighbours rightly prevented the defendants from their illegal attempt to trespass.

3.3. Initially, the plaintiffs filed a Suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.262 of 1991. Since the defendants created a cloud over plaintiffs' title, the plaintiffs filed another Suit in O.S.No.68 of 1998 for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. The case of the defendants is as follows:

4.1. R.S.Kandasamy executed two separate registered Wills dated December 12, 1986, and February 11, 1987, in favour of the defendants. R.S.Kandasamy passed away on May 2, 1990. Thereafter, the registered Wills came into force and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Hence, the defendants alone are the absolute owners of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have no right, title, interest or possession over the suit properties.

4.2. According to the defendants, Arputhammal is the first wife of R.S.Kandasamy, who is no more. Mad