The court reaffirmed the requirement of clear evidence for proving adoption and upheld the validity of a cancelled gift deed due to failure to meet stipulated conditions, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating 'giving and taking' in adoption.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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

2. The appellant of this 2^nd appeal was the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.101 of 1995 and he was the respondent in the First Appeal before the First Appellate Court vide T.A. No.18 of 1998.

The respondent of this 2^nd appeal was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.101 of 1995 and he was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.18 of 1998.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2^nd appeal) before the Trial Court against the defendant (appellant in this 2^nd appeal) vide T.S. No.101 of 1995 was a suit for declaration.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.101 of 1995 was that, one Sobha Dehury was the uncle of his father. The suit properties described in Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ of the plaint were acquired by the said Sobha Dehury. Laxmi Dehury was the wife of Sobha Dehury. As Sobha Dehury and Laxmi Dehury had no issue, for which, they (Sobha and Laxmi) adopted plaintiff as their son in the year 1969 and kept him (plaintiff) with them in their house at village Baibai. But, in the year 1975, when there was some quarrel between the natural father of the plaintiff, Sobha Dehury and Laxmi Dehury, the plaintiff went to his natural father’s house from the house of Sobha and Laxmi. Subsequent thereto, Laxmi Dehury went to the natural father’s house of the plaintiff and brought him (plaintiff) to her house. Accordingly, the plaintiff stayed in the house of Sobha and Laxmi as their adopted son. Out of love and affection, Sobha Dehury and Laxmi Dehury gifted the suit properties to the plaintiff by executing and registering a gift deed on dated 27.12.1975.

Accordingly, the plaintiff possessed the suit properties as exclusive owner of the same by staying in the house of Sobha and Laxmi as their son. But, Sobha and Laxmi died on 14.05.1993 and 18.09.1994 respectively leaving behind the plaintiff as their son and only successor. On 09.09.1995, when, the plaintiff went for cultivation of the suit properties, the defendant created disturbances in his possession over the suit properties and disclosed that, he (defendant) is the owner of the suit properties, because the suit properties have already been mutated to his name by an order of the Tahasildar, Rajgangpur. After hearing about the same, he (plaintiff) enquired the reasons thereof and came to know that, the defendant has mutated the suit properties to his name behind the back of the plaintiff as per order dated 29.06.1995 passed in Mutation Case Nos.326 & 327 of 1995 without following the due procedures of law.

According to the plaintiff, in fact the defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff and he (defendant) had initiated Mutation Cases vide Mutation Case Nos.326 & 327 of 1995 for mutation of the suit properties from the name of Sobha Dehury to his name through forged and fabricated document and he (defendant) has managed to obtain an order from the Tahasildar for mutation of the suit properties to his name illegally and the said illegal order of mutation is not binding upon him (plaintiff). For which, he (plaintiff) approached the Trial Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.101 of 1995 against the defendant and prayed for the declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties and also to declare that, the R.o.Rs, if any, issued in favour of the defenda