JUDGMENT

The appellant in this appeal has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1994. By the said judgment and decree, the lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banpur in T.S. No. 03 of 1990 and thus the suit filed by the appellant as the plaintiff which was decreed by the trial Court declaring the plaintiff to be the adopted son of one Halu Mohapatra has been upset and the suit has accordingly ended with dismissal.

2.For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Court below.

3.Plaintiff’s case is that he is the natural son of one Laxman Kumar Suar of village Badasireipur. Halu Mohapatra, the original defendant happens to be the brother-in-law ( sister’s husband) of Laxman. Halu had three daughters, who are all married and they have been substituted after the death of Halu. The original defendant contested the suit when two of them filed the appeal in which they have succeeded. It is stated that as Halu, the original defendant has no male issue, he and his wife decided to adopt a son, and accordingly, proposed Laxman to take plaintiff in adoption as their son. Laxman and his wife agreed to the said proposal to give plaintiff in adoption. Accordingly, the adoption ceremony was held as per the Hindu Rites and Customs on the auspicious Srigundicha day of the year 1966 in presence of relations of the parties. The giving and taking ceremony got completed on that day. The plaintiff was aged around one and half year at that time. It is the further case of the plaintiff that since the time of his adoption, be began to reside with Halu and his wife under one roof as their son. Halu and his wife took all his care as their son. Halu, the original defendant got the plaintiff admitted in the school, give him the education and also performed thread ceremony as also his marriage. The plaintiff with his wife after marriage continued to remain with Halu and his wife, along with two children born to them. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the original defendant executed a deed of acknowledgment of said adoption which was registered on 01.07.1983. It is alleged that when Halu, the original defendant became old, the plaintiff was looking after him and was taking his care. But during that period some persons of mischievous character intervened and joined hands with one of the son-in-laws of the original defendant, i.e. the husband of defendant no. 1(b) and they got a deed of cancellation of earlier deed of acknowledgement of adoption registered on 05.01.1989 which is said to be of no effect in the eye of law and does not take away the status of the plaintiff as the son of the original defendant. In view of that, plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that he is the adopted son of the defendant.

4.Halu being arraigned as the sole defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. While traversing the plaint averments, his normal relationship with the plaintiff is not denied. But the factum of adoption of the plaintiff by him and his wife in the year 1966 through necessary giving taking ceremony is specifically denied and so also his role in the performance of the thread ceremony and marriage of the plaintiff. He has also stated to have not admitted the plaintiff in the school being his adoptive father. The deed of acknowledgement of adoption dated 01.07.1983 is said to be the outcome of fraudulent activity of one Purna Chandra Biswal and Laxman, the father of the plaintiff. It is next stated that he had allowed the plaintiff to stay in his house only for the purpose of helping him in performing the Seva Puja in the temple. However , in course of time as disturbance arose, Purna Chandra Biswal was selected as the mediator and he influenced the defen