The court established that without conclusive evidence of adoption through a formal ceremony, claims of adoption cannot be accepted. The validity of the Gift deed was also rejected due to lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 is filed by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 6^th May, 2008 promulgated in RFA No.13 of 2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda, whereby, the decision in Civil Suit No.83 of 2005 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jharsuguda was confirmed for having decreed the suit declaring the right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff over Schedule ‘A’ property and that defendant No.1 not to be adopted son of the plaintiff on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

2. The deceased respondent No.1 as plaintiff instituted the suit against the appellant and respondent No.2 seeking declaration of title over Schedule ‘A’ land and challenging the adoption of the appellant so alleged. The respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 contested the suit denying the contention of the plaintiff pleading in support of the alleged adoption. Considering the rival claims of the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jharsuguda framed as many as seven issues which included the legality of the Gift deed dated 27^th June, 1989 executed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. On consideration of evidence adduced by both sides, learned Trial court decreed the suit on contest and declared title of the plaintiff over Schedule ‘A’ land and also held that the appellant is not adopted son of deceased respondent No.1. Being aggrieved of, the defendants challenged the aforesaid decision in RFA No.13 of 2007 which as stated before was dismissed confirming the decree and judgment in the suit. Hence, the second appeal.

3. This Court by order dated 7^th January, 2011 taking into account, the pleadings on record and findings of the learned courts below formulated the following substantial questions of law, such as:

(i) Whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred by law of limitation under Article 57 of the Limitation Act for the reasons stated?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is otherwise not entitled to inherit the suit property which admittedly belonged to Bhurli Patel as his son-in-law in view of Sections 8 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act?

(iii) Whether the learned courts below erred in law in annulling the Gift deed dated 27.6.1989 (Ext.A) for the assigned?

4. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. As stated before, respondent No.1 instituted the suit and denied the status of the appellant as his adoption son. The respondent No.2 is the natural father of the appellant. It was pleaded that there was adoption when the appellant was of tender age. In fact, respondent No.1 denied any such adoption of the appellant by him. Admittedly, the deceased respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are half-brothers. The respondent No.1 claimed declaration of title over Schedule ‘A’ land which was also decreed. The adoption of the appellant has also been disbelieved by both the learned courts below. In so far as, the Gift deed dated 27^th June, 1989 is concerned alleged to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 could not be proved in the manner, it is statutorily mandated and hence, the same was also disbelieved and rejected by the learned Trial court confirmed in appeal. The foremost question is, whether, the appellant was adopted by deceased respondent No.1 who stands deleted by