The validity of an adoption must be established by evidence of actual giving and taking of the child, with presumption favoring registered Adoption Deeds unless convincingly rebutted.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Original Suit, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated December 8, 2017 passed in A.S.No.42 of 2016 by the 'II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], wherein and whereby the Judgment and Decree dated February 3, 2016 passed in O.S.No.152 of 2013 by the 'Principal District Munsif Court, Thirukoilur' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE

3. The plaintiffs are a married couple with three children, the youngest of whom is Rajasekar. The defendants are also a married couple, with the 1^st defendant being the maternal uncle of 2^nd plaintiff. Although the defendants were married in 1993, they were issueless. Hence, out of kindness, the plaintiffs allowed the defendants to take care of their 3^rd child – Rajasekar by leaving him under the defendants custody. The plaintiffs never gave him in adoption to the defendants. However, the defendants took advantage of the custody, and obtained a Deed from the plaintiffs through false representation. The plaintiffs became aware of this Deed as an Adoption Deed only on June 11, 2012, when they demanded return of the child. Plaintiffs claim that no adoption ceremonies were performed and they never consented to the alleged adoption. Currently, the defendants' marital relationship has deteriorated. The 1st defendant developed a relationship outside of marriage with one A****** [name masked for the sake of privacy] and have a female child through her. After the birth of this female child, the 1^st defendant failed to maintain Rajasekar. Consequently, the plaintiffs demanded return of his custody. In response, the 1^st defendant claimed that the child was adopted by him through an Adoption Deed dated April 20, 2005, which was actually obtained falsely. Further, the 1^st defendant deserted his wife / 2^nd defendant. Currently, child - Rajasekar is in the custody of the 2^nd defendant, who is now living without sufficient income in a penurious condition unable to maintain the child. Despite this, the 2nd defendant refused to return the child to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the Suit praying to declare the Adoption Deed as null and void, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over custody of the child to the plaintiffs.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The defendants filed written statement denying the plaint averments, except the relationship between the parties and that their marriage took place in 1993 and that they were not blessed with a child. According to the defendants, since they were issueless, they adopted the child - Rajasekar from the plaintiffs with their consent. The adoption ceremony was conducted on August 30, 2004 at Padaleeswarar Temple, Cuddalore, in accordance with Hindu customs. From that day onwards, the child has been under their custody as their son. The defendants maintained the child with love and affection. To evidence the adoption, the defendants executed an Adoption Deed on April 20, 2005 with plaintiffs' due consent. They enrolled the child at Mahabharathi International School, Kallakurichi. On July 4, 2005, the 1^st defendant settled a property in favour of the minor child - Rajasekar. The plaintiffs have filed the Suit with a mala fide intention to usurp the said property. The Suit is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. Accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the Suit with costs.

TRIAL COURT

5. At trial, the plaintiffs were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, four other witnesses were examined as P.W.3 to P.W.6, and Ex-A.1 to Ex- A