Judgment

THAKKAR

( 1 ) WHETHER or not an adoption had taken place way back in 1956 is the controversy at the centre of the stage.

( 2 ) ONE Rahasa Pandiani (original defendant No. 1), widow of Lakshminarayana Panda had adopted one Gangapani, the son of the sister of her deceased husband in 1942 by a registered document. The said Gangapani died in 1953. Respondent No. 1 Gokulananda Panda (original plaintiff) instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal. He was a minor at the material time and the suit was instituted through his natural father and maternal uncle seeking a declaration that he was adopted as a son by defendant No. I Rahasa on 22/03/1956. The suit was instituted because she had alienated some of the properties in favour of appellants 2 to 8 and had made a will in favour of the deity bequeathing the rest of the properties on the premise that there was no such adoption and she was free to deal with the properties of her deceased husband. Defendant No. 1 resisted the suit and firmly denied that she had taken Gokulananda Panda in adoption as alleged. The trial Court on an appreciation of evidence disbelieved the version of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on taki