Adoption requires clear, admissible evidence, including parental consent; failure to establish this invalidates claims of ownership based on adoption.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellant in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1994 and respondent before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.01 of 1996.

3. The respondent in this 2^nd appeal was the Plaintiff No.1 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1994 and appellant before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.01 of 1996.

The suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1994 was filed by the respondent in this 2nd appeal, i.e., Upendra Dash along with one Mukta Dibya being the plaintiffs against the defendant(appellant in this 2^nd appeal) for declaration and permanent injunction in alternative recovery of possession.

As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Bharat Dash. Bharat Dash was the husband of the Plaintiff No.2(Mukta Dibya).

The Plaintiff No.1((Upendra Dash) is the natural born son of one Baidhar Panigrahi. Bharat Dash and Mukta Dibya(Plaintiff No.2) had no child. While the Plaintiff No.1(Upendra Dash) was aged about two years, on the day of Akshaya Trutiya in the year 1964, Bharat Dash and his wife Mukta Dibya(Plaintiff No.2) adopted Plaintiff No.1(Upendra Dash) as their son through observance of giving and taking ceremony in the house of Bharat Dash in presence of their well-wishers and relatives. In that giving and taking ceremony, the natural parents of Upendra Dash(Plaintiff No.1), i.e., Baidhar Panigrahi and his wife handed over Upendra Dash to Bharat Dash and Mukta Dibya for adoption and Bharat Dash and Mukta Dibya received Upendra Dash from Baidhar Panigrahi and his wife in presence of their well-wishers and relatives. As such, since the day of Akshaya Trutiya of the year 1964, Plaintiff No.1((Upendra Dash) became the adopted son of Bharat Dash and Mukta Dibya(Plaintiff No.2) curtailing his of all sorts of ties with his natural parents family.

Bharat Dash died in the year 1965 leaving behind his wife Mukta Dibya(Plaintiff No.2) and Upendra Dash(Plaintiff No.1) as his successors. After the death of Bharat Dash, Mukta Dibya (Plaintiff No.2) took the care of Upendra Dash(Plainiff No.1) and admitted him(Upendra Dash) in Basudepur U.P. School in the year 1967 as his mother indicating his surname as Dash. Subsequent thereto, Mukta Dibya (Plaintiff No.2) performed the thread ceremony of Upendra Dash(Plaintiff No.1). Accordingly, the documents including voter list, school admission register and other documents were prepared indicating Plaintiff No.1(Upendra Dash) as the son of Bharat Dash and Mukta Dibya (Plaintiff No.2). Plaintiff No.1((Upendra Dash) after completing his study, i.e., B.Sc., B.Ed., he(Upendra Dash, Plaintiff No.1) served in a High School as a teacher, which was situated at a distant place from his house. For which, taking the advantage of the absence of Plaintiff No.1 from his house and finding the Plaintiff No.2(Mukta Dibya) alone in her house, the defendant (Prasanna Kumar Dash) being the distant relative of Plaintiff No.2(Mukta Dibya) managed to execute two sale deeds on dated 23.06.1990 and 21.07.1993(Exts.2 and 3) respectively in respect of the suit properties in his favour from the Plaintiff No.2(Mukta Diya) without making her(Mukta Dibya) aware about the exe