The burden of proof in adoption cases and the requirement to establish adoption in accordance with the law, along with the significance of documentary and oral evidence.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant in F. A. No. 159/84, whereas the connected fa. No. 195/84 has been filed by the defendant. The suit was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. It was claimed that the plaintiff was the adopted son of one Sankar Mohanty and Labani Bewa and after the death of Sankar, Labani Bewa held executed a deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff, but-subsequently, the aforesaid Labani bewa again alienated the property in favour of the defendant by two registered sale deeds dated 17. 1. 1977 and 21. 4. 1977. .

( 2 ) THE defendant in her written statement denied about the alleged adoption and the deed of gift stating that the said deed of gift had not been validly executed.

( 3 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial court had framed several Issues. The main issue under issue Nos. 3 and 4 are as follows" (3) Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Sankar and Labani Bewa (4) Whether the deed of gift dated 22. 7. 1953 , executed by Labani bewa, a Pardanasin illiterate Lady in favour of the plaintiff is genuine and valid ?"the trial Court found under issue No. 3 that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Sankar and Labani Bewa, but disbelieved the due execution of the deed of gift dated 22. 7. 1953 and upheld the two sale deeds in favour of the defendant as valid and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the same in respect of the property covered under the two sale deeds dated 17. 1. 1977 and 21. 4. 1977 in favour of the defendants.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff has challenged the portion of the decree under which the suit in respect of the property covered under the two sale deeds had been rejected. The defendant has filed the appeal challenging the part of the decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the appeal filed by the defendant, the main question is relating to the finding of adoption of the plaintiff by sankar and Labani. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff the main contention is relating to the validity of the deed of the gift. Both the appeals being directed against the same judgment and decree are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 5 ) SINCE the question of adoption is the main issue, it is more appropriate to deal with the said question first. Law is now well-settled that as adoption displaces the natural course of succession, onus lies on the person who claims on the basis of adoption. The plaintiff in order to prove the adoption has relied upon the evidence of P Ws 1,2,4,5,7 and certain documents The defendant apart from adducing denial evidence through the mouth of several witnesses, has proved several documents wherein the plaintiff had been described as the son of Makar Sahu, his natural father.

( 6 ) P. W. 1 a relation of the natural father of the plaintiff, has deposed about the adoption Inter alia he has stated that one Dhruba mohapatra functioned as priest in the adoption ceremony The aforesaid Dhruba mohapatra was examined as P W 2. However, pw. 2 claims to have attended the Sradha ceremony of Sankar, but does not claim, that he functioned as a priest at the time of adoption In fact, he states that he heard about the adoption from others, but does not claim to be a direct witness to the adoption. In the original plaint, the date/year had not been indicated. However, subsequently, by way of amendment, it was indicated that the adoption had taken place on Dola Purnima day of 1944 If this would have been the single inconsistency in the pleading relating to adoption, one could have possibly come to a conclusion that a vague statement had been made or a wrong recording had been made. However, the story of adoption cannot be accepted in view of many other infirmities in evidence. It is not disputed that the natural father and mother of the plaintiff were alive at the time of hearing of the suit, but strangely enough, none of them was examined as a witness Similarly, the person who functio