In the case of old adoption, where the adopted son has been treated as such by public documents and by members of the family and other relations, there is a presumption in favor of adoption and the burden lies upon the person who challenges adoption.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Dash, J. - This appeal by the plaintiff is against the reversing judgment of the learned District Judge, Puri, passed in Title Appeal No. 74 of 1976.

2. Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and for injunction in respect of the suit land to an extent of Ac. 1. 82-1/2 dec., more specifically described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. Plaintiff's case, in brief, was that the suit land belonged to one Lokanath Dalai who died issueless. His wife predeceased him. Defendants 3 to 5 as brother's and sister's sons of Lokanath succeeded to all his properties including the suit land and while being in possession, transferred the suit land to the plaintiff under the sale deed, Ext. 1. Defendant No. 1 advanced a false claim over the suit land alleging that he is the adopted son of Lokanath. It is asserted by the plaintiff that both Lokanath and his wife were illiterate and taking advantage of their illiteracy defendant No. 1 got some deeds of conveyance executed and registered from them describing himself as their son and subsequently transferred certain properties belonging to Lokanath to defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed, Ext. H. A dispute regarding possession of the suit land arose for which a proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC was initiated and in that proceeding possession was declared in favour of defendant No. 2. This led the plaintiff, who was then a minor, to file the present suit through his father/guardian for declaration of his title and other consequential reliefs.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed joint written statement and traversed the averments made in the plaint. Their positive assertion was that as Lokanath was issueless, he and his wife adopted defendant No. 1 about 42 years back in presence of their relations. So, defendant No. 1 being the adopted son of Lokanath, succeeded to all. his properties including suit land. Defendants 3 to 5 who had no right, title or interest over the suit land transferred the same under the sale deed Ext. 1 to the plaintiff and the said document being invalid and inoperative, conveyed no title in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The trial Court framed as many as seven issues and having discussed the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, disbelieved the defendant No. 1's plea of adoption and consequently decreed the plaintiff's suit.

Upon appeal, the learned District Judge on re-appraisal of the evidence as also relying upon the documents, viz : sale deeds executed by Lokanath and his wife, voters-list and admission of Lokanath's wife in criminal proceeding, came to hold that defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Lokanath and having so held, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It is against this judgment of the appellate Court that the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the crux of the issue is whether defendant No. 1 is the adopted son of Lokanath. If this is answered in the affirmative, then seal of approval has to be affixed to the appellate Court's judgment.

6. It is well established principle of law that heavy onus lies upon the person who seeks to displace the natural succession by alleging adoption. When the question arises whether there has been adoption in a particular case, the conduct of the parties both before and after adoption, the attendant and antecedent circumstances, the existence or absence of any writing with reference to adoption and any previous adjudication in the matter by the Court, though not interparties, would be relevant. It is not possible in every case to lead oral evidence of giving and taking to prove adoption and more particularly in the case of old adoption. Where the adoption is alleged to have taken place long ago and the adopted son has been treated as such by public documents and by members of the family and other relations, there is a presumption in favour of adoption and the burden lies upon the person who challenges adoption. In the pr