Adoption must be established with evidence; mere school records are insufficient, and a Will must be executed and attested as per legal requirements to be valid.

JUDGMENT :

N.Sathish Kumar, J.

A challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed for declaration and partition.

2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that he was adopted by the 1^st defendant and her husband when he was 45 days old and adoption was done as per the customs and Hindu rites. The 1^st defendant educated him in A.E.S.Matric Higher Secondary School upto 8^th standard and at that time, his adoptive father died on 25.11.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiff was admitted in Swathi Matric Higher Secondary School at Hosur and was studying 9^th standard in the school. As the school fee has not been paid by the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff was not permitted to pursue education and he went to his parents house.

3. According to the plaintiff, thereafter, he was in the custody of one Rojali's at Kannandahalli and the 1^st defendant failed to get back her adoptive son back to her house. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that his father Balu @ Balachandran executed a registered Will on 13.12.2009 in respect of 'A' Schedule property and based on the Will, the plaintiff approached the 1^st defendant to deliver the Will property and at that time, he came to know that the 1^st defendant had obtained a decree in O.S.No.192 of 2013, stating that the property belonged to her. The suit was proceeded as against the minor and represented by one Gowrajammal and therefore, the said decree and judgment is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff seeks declaration of 'A' Schedule property on the basis of the Will and insofar as 'B' Schedule property is concerned, he seeks partition in respect of half share.

4. It is the contention of the 1^st defendant in the written statement that the property originally belonged to one Nagappa Chetty as per the partition deed of the year 1965 and after his demise, his son T.A.Balu @ Balachandran (in short 'Balu') inherited the property and therefore, the property is not a self acquired property of Balu. The adoption of the plaintiff is denied by the 1^st defendant. Similarly, the allegation that 1^st defendant and her husband educated the plaintiff is also denied. It is further contended that Rojali with whom the Plaintiff was in the custody had already filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif, Krishnagiri for a relief of declaration on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by Balu on 10.12.2010. The said suit was dismissed on 24.02.2015 and the appeal was also dismissed on 30.11.2017. The 1^st defendant denied the execution of registered Will by her husband and according to her, she is the sole legal heir of her husband and disputed the claim of the plaintiff.

5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Balu @ Balanchandran as adopted son or whether the 1^st defendant alone is the legal heir of the deceased Balu @ Balachandran?

2) Whether the suit schedule properties is the ancestral property?

3) Whether the registered Will dated 31.12.2009 executed in favour of the plaintiff is valid?

4) Whether the plaintiff was in the possession of the suit schedule property?

5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration to the suit schedule property?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of ½ share in the suit 'B' schedule properties?

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of sale deed in Doc.No.240/2018 dated 22.01.2018 as null and void?

8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the decree of cancel the decree of the suit in O.S.No.192/2013 dated 15.03.2017 as null and void?

9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

10) To what other relief of the plaintiff is entitled?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 to P.W.5 were also examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked. On the side of the defendants, 1^st defendant was e