The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of assessing the credibility of witnesses and the admissibility and relevance of evidence in proving the status of an adopted son in property disputes.

P. K. TRIPATHY, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in Title suit No. 18 of 1978 of the Court of Sub-judge, Athagarh is the appellant as against a decree for partition granted by the said court on the prayer of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, vide the impugned judgment delivered on 9th August, 1979.

( 2 ) LANDED properties described in Schedule A to E are the subject matter of dispute in the suit for partition. Schedule A property has been recorded in the name of jairam Gochhayat, i. e. the adoptive father of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. The rest of the properties have been recorded in their names along with some other co-owners. The respective recorded tenants of schedule C to E properties and their heirs figured as defendants 2 to 7 in the Court below. So far as the Schedule B property is concerned, one Nabin was a co-recorded tenant. Plaintiff did not add any person as the heir and successor of Nabin on the ground of non-availability of any such heir and therefore, claimed half of the said property to his share and the other half share to defendant No. 1 out of the Schedule B property.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the plaintiff, he is the adopted son of Jairam Gochhayat and defendant No. 1 is the widow of the brother of said Jairam. His further case is that during the life time of Jairam and his wife Srimati, they lived jointly with defendant No. 1 and after their death also the property remained joint between himself and defendant No. 1, and since defendant No. 1 has attempted to dispossess him from the suit property, therefore he filed the suit for partition.

( 4 ) IN her written statement, defendant no. 1 challenged to the status of the plaintiff as the adopted son of Jairam but did not dispute to the case of the plaintiff regarding joint ownership of the suit property with the family of Jairam. Defendant No. 1 claimed that they were all living jointly and after their death being the sole survivor she has become the absolute owner of the suit property to the extent of her own interest over the property besides to the interest of Jairam and after him his widow. She has asserted that plaintiff being a stranger to that joint family he is not entitled to any share out of the same. She has further pleaded that plaintiff being the son of the brother of srimati (Widow of Jairam) and since said srimati died leaving no issue, therefore. Ram chandra Swain, the natural father of the plaintiff has engineered such a false case to grab a share from the property. She has also pleaded that the co-recorded tenant Nabin has died leaving a nephew named Naya gochhi and the suit is bad for non-joinder of the heirs of said Nabin.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 7 filed a joint written statement admitting to the claim of the plaintiff relating to his status as the adopted son of Jairam as well as to his claim for partition.

( 6 ) ISSUES were recast on 9-7-1979 and the following three issues were taken up for adjudication of the suit :" (I) Is the plaintiff the adopted son of late jairam Gochhayat, and was there any giving and taking ceremony according to Hindu custom? (ii) Is the suit maintainable, whether the suit lands are liable for partition amongst the parties, and what will be the share of each party? (iii) Does the suit suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties, whether heirs of nabin Rout are necessary parties or not?"

( 7 ) IN course of. hearing, plaintiff examined himself as P. W. No. 1 and adduced evidence of defendant No. 2 Nityananda gochhayat as P. W. No. 2, Hadibandhu satpathy the priest as P. W. No. 3 and jadumani Barik a barber as P. W. No. 4, to prove his status as the adopted son of jairam Gochhayat. In that context, he also proved Ext. 1, a Transfer Certificate granted by a school to show that he has been described as the son of Jairam. The record of rights with respect to Schedule A to E properties were marked as Exts. 2 to 2/g. Defendant No. 1, in reply, examined herself as d. W. 1 and also examined two other witnesses nam