The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence, pleadings, and formal ceremonies in determining adoption and property ownership under Hindu Law.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Baidyanath Sarangi had two sons, namely, Basudev and Bamadev, plaintiff no.2. While they were living jointly, they sold a piece of ancestral land. Out of the sale proceeds, Basudev purchased the suit land. The suit property was acquired out of joint family fund. Plaintiff no.2 had share over it. Basudev, after death of his wife, adopted Chandrama, plaintiff no.1, daughter of Bamadev as his daughter about 16 years back and gave her marriage with Ramesh Chandra Mishra. After marriage, plaintiff no.1 and her husband resided in the house of Basudev. While the matter stood thus, Basudev fell ill. Defendant no.2, who is the son of maternal uncle of Basudev, fraudulently got a registered deed of gift on 16.8.78 in favour of his son, Kishore Chandra Mishra, defendant no.1. The gift deed had not been acted upon. After death of Basudev, plaintiff no.1 enjoyed the suit property and used to pay rent. It was further pleaded that in case the adoption of plaintiff no.1 as the daughter of Basudev is not accepted, plaintiff no.2 being the only survivor is entitled to the suit property. The gift deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief’s mentioned supra.

3. Both the defendants filed written statements separately. While admitting that the suit property belonged to Basudev, they disputed the mode of its acquisition. They denied that the suit property was acquired out of joint family fund. Basudev was residing with Banchhanidi Mishra, his maternal uncle, and looking after his agricultural land. Out of love and affection, Banchhanidhi executed a gift deed in favour of Basudev. Basudev was in possession of the suit property. He gifted the same in favour of defendant no.1 by means of a gift deed on 16.8.78. Plaintiff no.1 was not the adopted daughter of Basudev. Plaintiff no.1 and her husband are residing over a portion of the suit house as tenant. The gift deed having been executed by Basudev and the same having been accepted by defendant no.1, it is not open for the defendants to challenge the same.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Basudev. The statement made by Basudev on 30.1.79 in I.C.C. No.48/78 completely belies the case of adoption advanced by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff no.1 is not the daughter of Basudev. The gift deed was executed by Basudev in favour of defendant no.1. The land was mutated in favour of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 is exercising act of ownership over the property. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri in T.A. No.78 of 1985, which was eventually dismissed.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law as enumerated in ground nos. K(a) & (c) of the memorandum of appeal. The same are:

“(K)(a) Whether a statement of a deed man made in a criminal proceedings can be accepted as valid evidence before the civil court for determination of adoption.

(c) Whether the appellant no.1 can be validly treated as the adopted daughter of late Basudev in absence of any deed of adoption.

Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable in absence of any prayer to set aside the registered gift deed executed by Basudeb Sarangi on 16.3.1978 in favour of Kishore Chandra Mishra, defendant no.1 ?”

6. Heard Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Y. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.

7. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that t