A valid adoption requires the essential ceremony of 'giving and taking' to be proven. While registration of an adoption deed is not mandatory, the absence of proof of the ceremony, coupled with contradictory documentary evidence regarding parentage, renders a claim of adoption legally unsustainable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 12^th April, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.197 of 2013 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Hunasur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court') allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28^th March, 2012 passed in Original Suit No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunsur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Puttamma W/o Ramappaji Shetty filed the instant suit bearing Original Suit No.27 of 2009, seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction against the defendant-Puttappa Shetty in respect of suit schedule property. It is stated that, the said Ramappaji Shetty and Puttappa Shetty are brothers and they are the children of Appanna Shetty. Ramappaji Shetty died on 16^th May, 1973 leaving behind his wife Puttamma as his sole legal representative. After the death of Ramappaji Shetty, his wife Puttamma succeeded to the estate belongs to her husband. It is also stated that, one Javarappa Shetty and Sannamma were the natural parents of the plaintiff. The said Sannamma and Puttamma are sisters. After the death of Ramappaji Shetty, his wife Puttamma adopted the plaintiff, who was aged about four years at the time of adoption. It is averred in the plaint that the adoption ceremony in respect of adopting the plaintiff by Puttamma was held on 28^th October, 1974 at Kanagalu Village and thereafter, same was reduced into the document. It is also stated that, pursuant to the Adoption Deed dated 28^th October, 1974, the plaintiff is residing with his adopted mother Puttamma and was under care and custody accordingly. The said Puttamma died on 19^th November, 2002 and plaintiff performed all funeral obsequies of Puttamma and became sole legal representative to succeed to the estate of deceased Puttamma. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendant without the knowledge and consent of Puttamma, got transferred the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property into the name of the defendant and as such, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit.

4. After the service of notice, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant admits the relationship with Puttamma and Ramappaji Shetty. It is the specific case of defendant that the suit schedule items 1 to 4 are not the self acquired properties of Ramappaji Shetty and item No.5 is not acquired by Puttamma from the income derived from item Nos.1 to 4. It is further contended that the plaintiff is son of Javarappa Shetty and Sannamma and accordingly, disputes the adoption said to have been held on

28^th October, 1974.

5. It is further stated in the written statement that, after the death of Puttamma and her husband Ramappaji Shetty, the defendant being the brother of Ramappaji Shetty succeed to the estate of the deceased Puttamma and Ramappaji Shetty. Therefore, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration.

7. In order to establish their case, plaintiff examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to