IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Evidence in support of adoption must be sufficient enough to satisfy the very grave and serious onus that rests upon person who seeks to displace natural succession by alleging adoption.
2. When a long lapse of time between adoption and it’s being questioned, every allowance for absence of such evidence to prove such fact must be favourably entertained, reason being that on expiry of very long term of years, it is difficult to procure evidence.

D. Dash, J.— In the present appeal, the unsuccessful plaintiff as appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2000 and 11.8.2000 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bargarh in Title Suit No. 43 of 1995 non-suiting the appellant (plaintiff) and refusing to grant relief as prayed for against the respondent (defendant).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Court below.

3. The suit of the plaintiff is one for declaration that the defendant is not the adopted son of Hiradhar Pradhan, her father with the relief of confirmation of possession in respect of the suit schedule property and alternative prayer for recovery of possession.

4. According to the case of the plaintiff, one Budhu Pradhan was the common ancestor and he died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Damodar, Gadadhar, Dwarika and Hiradhar. The plaintiff is claimed to be the sole legal representative of Hiradhar on the death of her mother Hema in the year 1991. As per the case of the plaintiff, defendant is the son of late Dwarika. So, plaintiff claims to be the only daughter and successor-in-interest of late Hiradhar and it is said that the defendant falsely stakes his claim to be the adopted son of Hiradhar. Accordingly, the plaintiff has claimed reliefs as stated above. The plaintiff while denying the status of defendant as the adopted son of her father Hiradhar, claims to be in possession of the suit schedule properties and stating that the defendant is in a mood to dispossess her, the suit has been filed.

The defendant by filing the written statement contested the suit. Admitting himself to be the natural son of late Dwarika Pradhan, he has specifically pleaded to have been adopted by Hiradhar and his wife Hema, i.e., by his paternal uncle and aunt, when they had no child. It is the further case of the defendant that the adoption took place on Sripanchami day in the month of Magha in the year 1952. As stated, the ceremony to that effect was performed in the house of Hiradhar. It is also stated that for all purpose and in every sphere, he was recognized as the son of Hiradhar when Hiradhar and his wife Hema had all along given out to that effect. The defendant claims to have been residing with the adoptive parents all throughout their life and he further claims to be in occupation of the house where Hiradhar and Hema were residing. The defendant admits the plaintiff to be his sister living with her husband, but denies her case with regard to possession while claiming the possession unto himself. With these pleadings, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed six issues. Out of which the most important one is the issue relating to adoption as claimed by the defendant and denied by the plaintiff as the fate of the suit hinges upon the answer on this particular issue.

The parties have adduced the evidence during the trial of the suit. When plaintiff has examined five witnesses including her husband PW4, the defendant has also examined witnesses of equal numbers including himself as DW2.

The Trial Court on analysis of evidence, both oral and documentary in its wisdom, has answered issue No. 2 holding the defendant to be the adopted son of Hiradhar and Hema, the parents of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff has accordingly been dismissed, while simultaneously answering another issue No.5 as regards limitation also against the plaintiff.

6. In this appeal, the plaintiff mainly assails the finding on issue No.2 and next on that issue No.5.

Learned Counsel for both the sides also advanced argument and counter argument at length on above issues.

The learned Counsel for the appellant (plaintiff) attacked the finding on the said issue of adoption as contrary to the evidence on record and based on improper rather perverse appreciation of evidence. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondent