JUDGMENT S.P. Bhargava, J. This appeal by the Plaintiff Babulal arises out of a suit filed by him in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Khandwa, for a declaration that he is the adopted son of the deceased Chunnilal and his wife, Smt. Rajkunwarbai. The Plaintiff also claimed a permanent injunction against the Defendants 1 to 3 for restraining them from taking possession of the movable and immovable property mentioned in Schedules 'A' and 'B' annexed to the plaint. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner, Nimar, was impleaded as Defendant No. 4 as representing the State. Now, in his place the Collector has been brought on record. An injunction was claimed against Defendant No. 4 for preventing him from handing over the property seized on the death of Smt. Rajkunwarbai by the Station Officer of Mandhata to Defendants 1 to 3. The Suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his alleged adoption. This is the main issue for trial in this appeal filed by the Plaintiff. To appreciate the case, it would be essential to mention a few facts. Chunnilal's first wife was one Smt. Gahanbai. At the time of her death, Chunnilal had three daughters through her, namely, Dwarkabai, Ghisibai and Parvatibai, who are Defendants 1 to 3 on record. He had no male issue. He married Smt. Rajkunwarbai near about the year 1926. From Smt. Rajkunwarbai, he had no issue, male or female. It is alleged that Chunnilal in consultation with his wife, Smt. Rajkunwarbai, and Sidhnath, the natural father of the Plaintiff Babulal, decided to adopt Babulal, who in the natural relationship was his brother Bondru's son's son. It is averred in the plaint that on 20-1-1934 which was the Basant, Panchmi Day the Plaintiff was adopted at village Sulgaon, where Chunnilal and Sidhnath resided. It is alleged that he was given in adoption by his father Sidhnath. The essential ceremony of giving and taking and the ceremony of Dutta homam and other customary rituals were performed. It is further alleged that thereafter the Plaintiff was brought up and educated by Chunnilal up to the time of his death and thereafter, by Smt. Rajkunwarbai. Chunnilal died on 13-11-1935. The essential ceremony of giving and taking and the ceremony of Dutta homam and other customary rituals were performed. It is further alleged that thereafter the Plaintiff was brought up and educated by Chunnilal up to the time of his death and thereafter, by Smt. Rajkunwarbai. Chunnilal died on 13-11-1935. It is also pleaded that the thread ceremony and marriage of the Plaintiff were performed by Smt. Rajkunwarbai at her expense and she provided the expenses when Babulal was receiving his education at a school at Sanwad. It is alleged in the plaint that eight or ten days before her death, Smt. Rajkunwarbai called the Plaintiff to her bed-side from Indore where he was in the service of a Vaidya. It is alleged that the Plaintiff performed the after death ceremonies of Rajkunwarbai who breathed her last on 25-8-1952. Shortly after the death of Smt. Rajkunwarbai, one Saraswatibai who was her sister, informed Mandhata police that none of Rajkunwarbai's heirs were in the village where she had died and it was likely that her property would be intermeddled by those persons who had no right to it. On this application, the Mandhata police seized the entire movable and immovable property which was left at the time of death of Rajkunwarbai u/s 26 of the Police Act and deposited the movable property in the nazarat of the office of the Deputy Commissioner and gave the immovable property in possession of certain Supratdars. Defendants 1 to 3 preferred a claim before the Deputy Commissioner for possession of the property. It was registered as intestate case No. 2 of 1953. In this case, the Plaintiff was a party but he did not adduce any evidence and stated that he would file another suit to establish his right as adopted son of Chunnilal. The intestate case was decided in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 on 18-1-1954. It is also on record that after the death of Chunnilal, the name of Smt. Rajkunwarbai was mutated in the revenue records in respect of all lands left by him and no change in the revenue entries in his favour was ever sought by the Plaintiff or his natural father even up to the time of the death of Smt. Rajkunwarbai. It is also in evidence that Smt. Rajkunwarbai dealt with properties after her husband's death a;3 owner thereof and alienated properties on three different occasions. It is also in evidence that Smt. Rajkunwarbai dealt with properties after her husband's death a;3 owner thereof and alienated properties on three different occasions. Two of the alienations made by her were not challenged by anybody while one was challenged by Defendants 1 to 3 but unsuccessfully. Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte in the Plaintiff's suit and did not file any written statement. Defendant No. 3. Smt. Parvatibai, contested the suit and inter alia raised the plea that the adoption pleaded by the Plaintiff was in fact never made and so he was not the adopted son of Chunnilal and Smt. Rajkunwarbai as alleged, Defendant No. 4 also filed a statement contesting the adoption and pleading that he (defendant No. 4) was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and the suit was bad against Defendant No. 4 on the ground that notice u/s 80 of the CPC was not given before its institution. In the present appeal, as already stated, the main question for determination is whether the Appellant was the adopted son of Chunnilal. If this question is answered for the Appellant, then some other minor questions may be required to be considered but if his adoption is held not proved, the appeal must fail without any other question being required to be determined. Shri R.K. Pandey, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, took us through the entire evidence on record and contended that in the instant case, the adoption of Babulal was fully borne out by the oral evidence. He referred to the statements of Motiram (P.W. 3), Naharsingh (P.W. 4), Plaintiff himself (P.W. 11), Sitaram (P.W. 12) and Sidhnath (P.W. 13), the natural father of the Plaintiff who are all witnesses from the village Sulgaon where the adoption ceremony is said to have taken place. He referred to the statements of Gourishankar (P.W. 1) and Balwantrao (P.W. 2) also who are said to have officiated as priests at the adoption ceremony, Girdharilal (P.W. 5) is said to have prepared laddoos for the adoption ceremony and he deposes to his having been called to receive pan supari at that ceremony. Abdul Ali (P.W. 6) is a retired process-server who deposed that Chunnilal had mentioned to him his intention to take the Plaintiff in adoption. Ramkrishna (P.W. 7) is the father-in-law of the Plaintiff, Babulal. Abdul Ali (P.W. 6) is a retired process-server who deposed that Chunnilal had mentioned to him his intention to take the Plaintiff in adoption. Ramkrishna (P.W. 7) is the father-in-law of the Plaintiff, Babulal. He has deposed that he would not have offered his daughter in marriage to the Plaintiff if he were not the adopted son of Chunnilal, as his natural father, Sidhnath, was a person of no means at all. It is, however, surprising to note that after the death of Chunnilal in the year 1935, he never cared to see that the property left by him was mutated in the name of his son-in-law, the plaiatiff. It is curious that he did not raise his little finger even when alienations of property were made by Smt. Rajkunwarbai on more than one occasion. Ramkishan (P.W. 8) has deposed that he went to participate in the meals after the adoption ceremony at the instance of one Kallu Master who is the son-in-law of Sidhnath (P.W. 13). Sobharam (P.W. 9) has deposed that he had to execute a decree for the payment of Rs. 6 against Sidhnath (P.W.13). He told the Plaintiff that his father (Sidhnath) was not paying the amount but the Plaintiff then replied that he had nothing to do with his father and was living separately. Ramkrishna (P.W. 10) is the son-in-law of Sidhnath. He deposed that he had insisted on a document of adoption being written in the life-time of Chunnilal and he had promised to get one written within a few months but as he did not live long after the adoption, the document was not written. He has also given evidence about animosity between Defendants 1 to 3 on the one hand and their step-mother Smt. Bajkunwarbai on the other and Plaintiff's adoption was assigned as the reason for the feelings being strained. The last witness on behalf of the Plaintiff is his natural father Sidhnath (P.W. 13). He was initially not cited as a witness by the Plaintiff. He is the only witness on the side of the Plaintiff who has mentioned the date of adoption. He stated that the date was recorded in a diary kept by him but that diary was not produced. He admitted that he did not get the name of father changed in the school records after the adoption of his son Babulal. He is the only witness on the side of the Plaintiff who has mentioned the date of adoption. He stated that the date was recorded in a diary kept by him but that diary was not produced. He admitted that he did not get the name of father changed in the school records after the adoption of his son Babulal. He admitted unequivocally that he does not hold a single document in which the Plaintiff was described as the adopted son of Chunnilal. The lower Court discussed the evidence of these witnesses in great detail in connection with issues Nos. 1 to 5 which covered the fact of Plaintiff's adoption by Chunnilal. The relevant discussion is to be found in paragraphs 15 to 33 of the lower Court's judgment. After discussing the entire evidence, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the conduct of the principal parties in the case was such as did not justify the conclusion of the Plaintiff's adoption, having been made. It also emphasised the fact that independent witnesses were kept back and the evidence mainly consisted of some relations of the Plaintiff, e.g., Gourishanker (P.W. 1), Ramkishan (P.W. 7), Ramkrishna (P.W. 10) and Sidhnath (P.W. 13). Gourishankar (P.W. 1) stated that he was the nephew of the wife of Sidhnath. He deposed that the adoption ceremony started at 9 a. m., and lasted for about three hours and he had attended that ceremeny having been invited to attend it by means of a letter. Balwantrao (P.W. 2) has deposed that he also officiated as a priest at the adoption ceremony along with the main priesit Gopal Shukla. He clearly admitted in his deposition that he attended the ceremony without any separate and independent invitation because Chunnilal had asked him to join when he met him on the road. The deposition of Balwantrao clearly shows that he was in difficulty in his cross-examination when he was asked to state the approximate age of Chunnilal which he gave so as 20, 40 and 15 years which itself indicates that possibly he had never seen Chunnilal and is merely deposing from imagination. If he were really present at the ceremony which took about three hours to be completed, howsoever, careless he might have been in observing things, he could not possibly omit to give a fairly good idea of the age of Chunnilal. If he were really present at the ceremony which took about three hours to be completed, howsoever, careless he might have been in observing things, he could not possibly omit to give a fairly good idea of the age of Chunnilal. The depositions of P. Ws. 1 and 2 are conflicting in the details of ceremonies performed at the time of the alleged adoption. Motiram (P.W. 3) deposed that he went at the place where adoption was held at about 12 noon but it is curious to note that he also claims to have witnessed all the ceremonies of adoption. It is clear that if P.W. 1 was right in telling that the adoption ceremony commenced at 9 a. m. the time by which Motiram reached the spot most of the ceremonies should have been over. Another witness from the village is Sitaram (P.W. 12). He alludes to the presence of only 10 or 15 persons at the time of adoption but the other witnesses have variously stated the number of persons present from 60 to 100; Naharsingh (P.W. 4) claims to have remained at the place of adoption for about two hours but all that he observed was the legally unavoidable and important ceremony of giving and taking and has omitted to give particulars or details of any other ceremony that he saw. He claims himself to be a 'gurubhai' of Rajkunwarbai. Possibly that reason had to be introduced to explain his presence at the time of adoption but significantly enough, the witness does not remember the name of his 'gun'. The testimony of Girdharilal (P.W. 5), Abdul Ali (P.W. 6), Sobharam (P.W. 9) and Ramratan (P.W. 8) on the fact of it does not merit much belief. Ramratan (P.W. 8) merely happens to be a chance witness and appears to have been introduced as a witness by his friend Kallu Master who is the son-in-law of Sidhnath. Ramkishan (P.W. 7) is the Plaintiff's father-in-law and a highly interested witness. It has already been shown that his conduct does not support the factum of adoption. In addition, he has stated that at the time of marriage of the Plaintiff with his daughter, about ten persons from Sulgaon had attended the marriage. It is claimed by him that the expenses of marriage were borne by Smt. Rajkunwarbai. None of those independent witnesses have been examined. In addition, he has stated that at the time of marriage of the Plaintiff with his daughter, about ten persons from Sulgaon had attended the marriage. It is claimed by him that the expenses of marriage were borne by Smt. Rajkunwarbai. None of those independent witnesses have been examined. Babulal (P.W. 11), the Plaintiff himself, and Sidhnath (P.W. 13), were important witnesses. We agree with the observations; of the lower Court that in the fitness of things, they should have been examined at a very early stage but were purposely kept back to supply lacuna which may be left in the evidence of other witnesses. The Plaintiff himself gave his statement as P.W. 11. He, however, failed to explain as to why after the date of his alleged adoption, he never described himself as the son of his adopted father in the school records or in the municipality where he served as a peon. It is worthy of note that at the time of Smt. Rajkunwarbai's death, the adoption was about 18 years old* if that was true, but in this long period, there is not a single document to support the adoption. He has also not explained why the alienations of property made by Smt. Rajkunwarbai were not challenged by him. He has failed to specify any reason for his omission to get his name mutated. The principles on which oral evidence has to be appreciated in cases of adoption are well settled. It has repeatedly been held that due importance has to be attached to the conduct of the principal parties, their relations and attending circumstances and if these factors, when taken into account, do not support the adoption, it has to be held that the Plaintiff, on whom a Very heavy onus lies to displace the natural line of succession by proving his adoption, must be held to have failed to discharge that onus. We may now discuss some of the decided cases. (1) In Kishorilal v. Chhunnilal ILR 31 All. 116, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, reversing the decision of the High Court, held: ... We may now discuss some of the decided cases. (1) In Kishorilal v. Chhunnilal ILR 31 All. 116, their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, reversing the decision of the High Court, held: ... that having regard to the contradiction between the principal witnesses examined on the respective sides on almost every important point; the improbabilities of the Respondent's story; its inconsistency with the conduct and action of the principal parties concerned, as well as with the mode in which the business of the firm was conducted and carried on; the suppression of documents; the non-appearance of the Respondent as a witness at the trial to explain, if he could, the many circumstances which called for explanation from him; the absence of all reference to the date of the adoption; and above all the non-production of any account of expenditure at the ceremony, which, if his witnesses spoke the truth, must have been notorious in the neighbourhood where it took place, the Respondent had failed to discharge the burden of proof which lay upon him, and had not established his claim. (2) In Lal Kunwar v. Chiranjilal ILR 31 All. 104, it was contended that the High Court was wrong in holding that the adoption of Chiranjilal by Brijlal was established: It was urged that the Respondent's claim to have been so adopted was opposed to all the probabilities of the case and the conduct of the parties and that of the Respondent's father and his father-in-law. The books of account in which the entries concerning the fact of the ceremony and the expenses of adoption were said to have been made, were not produced and the suit was instituted long after it could actually be instituted if an adoption had been made. The alleged adopted boy did not offer any explanation in that case as to why in the Government High School of Muzaffarnagar his father's name was given as the name of his natural father and not of his adopted father. Their Lordships dealing with this point gave due weight to these circumstances and not to the mere oral testimony and observed at page 115: Due weight, however, does not appear to have been given to the conduct of the Plaintiff; the improbability and inconsistency of the story told on his behalf; his absence from the witness chair; and the non-production of all books or documents. The conduct of the trial was, on the whole, eminently unsatisfactory. The Subordinate Judge decided, as a fact on the evidence before him, that the Plaintiff had not been adopted. The High Court, on the same evidence, decided that he had been adopted. Their Lordships do not accept either of these conclusions. It appears to them that the sounder view lies between these two extremes. The burden of proving that the alleged adoption took place 20 years before the trial rested upon the Plaintiff. They are clearly of opinion that he has failed to discharge it. (3) In Hariharsingh v. Deonarayan AIR 1954 Nag 319 : ILR 1954 Nag 699, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sinha C.J. (as he then was) and Bhutt J., held: When there are improbabilities in the story of adoption, which is inconsistent with the conduct of the principal parties concerned, it cannot be urged that the person setting up the adoption has discharged his burden of proof. (4) In a recent case decided by the Supreme Court, Kishori Lal Vs. Mst. Chaltibai, , their Lordships have thus stated the law on the point: As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations, it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicions of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. We have now to see as to whether the adoption set up in this case can be upheld if the tests stated in the aforesaid cases are applied. In the present case, there are numerous circumstances which lead on to the conclusion that if the adoption had really been made, facts would not have taken place in the manner that we find them to have happened, In the first place, it would be seen that the police took possession of the property in 1952 on the death of Smt. Rajkunwarbai after about 18 years of the adoption. The village Sulgaon must be a small village. The property as mentioned in the schedules of the plaint is not of inconsiderable value. If the oral evidence is to be believed, many persons from the village and many outsiders were present at the adoption. The village Sulgaon must be a small village. The property as mentioned in the schedules of the plaint is not of inconsiderable value. If the oral evidence is to be believed, many persons from the village and many outsiders were present at the adoption. In other words, the fact of adoption must have been a well-known fact if it had taken place but the Mandhata police on being informed by Smt. Saraswatibai took possession of the entire property treating it as 'lavaris' in the absence of the first three Defendants on spot and there appears to be no suggestion made to the police about there being the adopted boy in existence and at the time of the seizing of the property, no opposition was raised by the Plaintiff who was then about 25 years of age though present in the village itself. The conduct of the Plaintiff as an adopted son appears to be absolutely unnatural. The second circumstance which we desire to emphasize is that in the intestate Case No. 2 of 1953, referred to above, the Plaintiff did not adduce any evidence although he had an opportunity to do so. Possibly, he had no full idea as to what evidence should be produced at that time and to gain time it was stated that he would file a suit of his own to establish his adoption. The third circumstance against the adoption which is very strong is that the name of Smt. Rajkunwarbai continued to be recorded in the revenue papers throughout her life-time and no attempt was made to get mutation in his name by the Plaintiff on attaining majority and before that time by his natural father. The Plaintiff in his cross-examination was clearly asked as to why he did not make an application for mutation in his name and he was unable to assign any reason for it although Shri Pandey tried to explain that the name of Smt. Rajkunwarbai was allowed to be continued out of respect for her. We are unable to accept this explanation given by the Appellant's Learned Counsel which was not offered at the proper time and to us, therefore, appears to be merely an after-thought. Another significant fact is that Smt. Rajkunwarbai on the death, of her husband, treated the property left by him as her own and dealt with it on that footing. We are unable to accept this explanation given by the Appellant's Learned Counsel which was not offered at the proper time and to us, therefore, appears to be merely an after-thought. Another significant fact is that Smt. Rajkunwarbai on the death, of her husband, treated the property left by him as her own and dealt with it on that footing. It is an admitted position on record that on three different occasions she alienated property and she did not purport to act as manager or as guardian of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not challenge any of these alienations. The daughters had challenged one of them on the ground that there was no legal necessity. However, it was held that the legal necessity existed. Another circumstance is that the Plaintiff received his education at Sanwad and Indore. This education continued after 1934 in which year the adoption is alleged to have taken place but not on a single occasion anywhere has figured the name of his father as Chhunilal and the entries of father's name continued to be made as if no adoption had taken place. The matter becomes more significant when it is alleged that Smt. Rajkunwarbai provided for the expenses of his education and she got him admitted in the school at Sanwad. There is another circumstance which weighs heavily against the adoption. The Plaintiff served in the municipal committee at Sanwad as peon for three years and later worked as compounder with Shri Khyaliram Vaidya at Indore. He has failed to produce any record of this period where he declared his father's name as Chunnilal though it is clear that the entire period of his service in the municipality and as compounder is much later to the date of the adoption. It further looks unbelievable on the face of it that if the Plaintiff were adopted as alleged, he would choose to serve on an insignificant post of a peon and not remain with his adoptive mother, Smt. Rajkunwarbai to manage the property which was of considerable value. There is no evidence on record to show that he ever continued to live in the family of his adoption. It is also significant to note that after the alleged adoption, the name of the Plaintiff in the family of adoption was not changed. There is no evidence on record to show that he ever continued to live in the family of his adoption. It is also significant to note that after the alleged adoption, the name of the Plaintiff in the family of adoption was not changed. The learned Civil Judge has considered these circumstances in paragraph 34 of his judgment and we agree that considering the weight of all these circumstances, it is not possible for us to come to any other conclusion in favour of the Appellant as regards the adoption set up by him. Shri R.K. Pandey strenuously contended that as Defendant No. 1, Smt. Dwarkabai and Ghisibai as Defendant No. 2 did not come forward to oppose the claim and Defendant No. 3 Parvatibai did not enter the witness-box to give her statement in support of her written statement, adverse inference against them is warranted and should be drawn. He relied upon the decision in AIR 1927 230 (Privy Council) where their Lordships have said that the true object to be achieved by Courts of justice can only be furthered with propriety by the testimony of the party who personally knowing the whole circumstances of the case can dispel the suspicions attaching to it. The story can then be subjected in all its particulars to cross-examination. He also drew our attention to the decision in AIR 1940 266 (Oudh) , where it has been observed: A partly's failure to go into the witness-box raises a strong presumption against the truth of her case. - The fact of her being a pardanashin lady is not a sufficient excuse for her not getting herself examined on commission. In the circumstances of this case, we are however unable to agree that an adverse inference against the defend ants is warranted. Neither in the plaint nor in the statement of any of the Plaintiff's witnesses has it been alleged or suggested that at the time of the alleged adoption any of the Defendants 1, 2 & 3 were present. Therefore, on Plaintiff's own showing, the fact of adoption was not within the direct knowledge of these Defendants. It is further significant to note that Pyarelal (D.W. 3) who is the husband of Defendant No. 3, Smt. Parvatibai, has very plainly denied the fact of Babulal being adopted by his lather-in-law, Chunnilal. Therefore, on Plaintiff's own showing, the fact of adoption was not within the direct knowledge of these Defendants. It is further significant to note that Pyarelal (D.W. 3) who is the husband of Defendant No. 3, Smt. Parvatibai, has very plainly denied the fact of Babulal being adopted by his lather-in-law, Chunnilal. He stated that if any such adoption had been made, both he and his wife would have been invited to the function. In cross-examination, no attempt seems to have been made to challenge by putting any questions whatever the accuracy of his statement. We are further of the view that the weight which has been attached to the important circumstances and pieces of conduct cannot be destroyed by the mere fact that Defendants 1, 2 & 3 did not make statements as witnesses in the case. Shri R.J. Bhave for Respondent No. 4 also supported the first three Respondents and contended that as no notice u/s 80 of the CPC was given, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was not maintainable. It cannot be disputed that notice u/s 80 is mandatory in all cases in which the State or a public officer purporting to act in discharge of his official duty is desired to be sued and admits of no exception or implications. The finding of the trial Court is that the Plaintiff's suit against Defendant No. 4 deserves to be dismissed on this short ground that no notice was given to Defendant No. 4. We agree with the view of the lower Court. This point, however, need not be discussed further by us because we have already held that the Plaintiff's adoption is not proved. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee of Respondent Parvatibai to be taxed according to schedule. Counsel's fee of Respondent No. 4, Rs. 100, if certified. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed