( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 3-8-1998 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil suit No. 10-A of 1981 whereby the Court has decreed the suit for declaration of possession and mesne profits.

( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging that the House No. 251 was owned by Shankarlal Cheetarmal, his name was recorded in the Municipal record since Samvat 2002. Pyarelal who was natural son of Nemi Chand was adopted by Shankarlal somewhere in 1925 when he was 4-5 years of age. Nemichand had two other sons Dhannalal and pannalal. Pyarelal died in the year 1948-49, while Shankarlal died in the year 1951, at that time present plaintiff was minor. Sonibai wife of Pyarelal and chhutanki Bai wife of Shankarlal were looking after him, at that time Nemiehand, who was residing in Rajasthan came to Shivpuri and started looking after the business as Ammuktiyar. Nemichand was thus put in possession of the suit property by Sonibai and Chhutanki Bai to look after the business. At the time of filing of suit the plaintiff attained majority as he was 20 years of age as defendant started claiming right to the suit property. The present suit was filed for declaration of title to the suit house which is bearing survey No. 251, relief of possession and mesne profit is also made in the plaint.

( 3. ) IN Para 5 of the plaint pedigree is given as under :-

( 4. ) THE defendant filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is submitted that the house was not owned by Shankarlal. Shankarlal and Chhitarmal were not related to each other. Chhitarmal was son of Laliram and they were not related to Shankarlal. According to the defendant pedigree of the family was as under :-

( 5. ) THE defendant has also pleaded that he has acquired right to the suit property by way of adverse possession. According to him the defendant is in possession of the property since 1928. He has denied the fact that he was inducted in the possession in pursuance to Ex. P-1 the power of attorney in the year 1952 as alleged by the plaintiff. The Trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence has decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

( 6. ) THE Counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the Court. Atcording to the Counsel plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant was put in possession in 1953. According to him he is in possession since 1928. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged adoption of the Pyarelal by Shankarlal is also not proved and therefore, in absence of proof of adoption even if the defendant has no title to the property, decree for possession in favour of the present plaintiff cannot be passed. From the allegations and evidence, it appears that the house in question was initially owned by Chhitarmal. Shankarlal was son of Chhitarmal and Shankarlal has adopted Pyarelal. The present plaintiff alleged to be a son of Pyarelal. There is no dispute about the title of shankarlal to the suit house.

( 7. ) THE first question urged by Counsel for the appellant is that adoption of Pyarelal by Shankarlal is not proved. As per plaint allegation the said adoption has taken place in the year 1925. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the burden of proving adoption is heavy on the plaintiff and he has failed to discharge the burden placed upon him. To support his argument has invited attention of this Court to the evidence on record. Plaintiff to prove his case has examined Sonibai (P. W. 1), Sonibai wife of pyarelal, was 60 years of age at the time of evidence. Her statement was recorded on 14-1-1984, i. e. , she was about one year old at the time of adoption. This witness has stated that Pyarelal has gone in adoption to Shankarlal in very young age at that time his age was 4-5 years. This witness has married to Pyarelal after adoption. Thus, this witness has no per