Judgment :- M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.: 1. Since the parties as well as the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same and both the suits were tried jointly and judgment was rendered by the learned single Judge in common, these appeals also are being disposed of in a common judgment. 2. O.S.No.47 of 1998 has been filed by the appellant herein challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.502 of 1983, in which the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. O.S.A.No.46 of 1998 by the appellant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge in C.S.No.665 of 1987, in which the appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. 3. The facts in C.S.No.502 of 1983 (O.S.A.No.47 of 1998) are as follows: (a) The case of the plaintiff is this: The appellant/plaintiff was adopted by Mr.Ramarathinam and his wife Lalitha in the year 1959 when he was one year old. However, the adoptive parents had given birth to one daughter in 1964, the second defendant and one son in 1966, the first defendant. The adoptive mother of the appellant/plaintiff died in the year 1981 and the adoptive father Ramarathinam also died in the year 1982. After the death, one Lakshmi Nagarajan, the sister of the adoptive mother Lalitha Ramarathinam, who came for the funeral ceremonies of his adoptive father, started giving trouble to him and threw him out of the house by throwing his articles. So, the appellant was forced to reside in the carshed. He approached the defendants 1 and 2 and mother of the adoptive father, defendant No.3 claiming 1/4th share by issuing notice. There was no proper reply. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share. (b) The case of the defendants is this: The plaintiff was the son of a domestic servant Saradha, working in their house. Ramarathinam educated the plaintiff out of compassion. The plaintiff belongs to Backward Vanniyar community, while Ramarathinam and Lalitha belonged to an orthodox Brahmin community. After the death of the parents, Lakshmi Nagarajan, the maternal aunt of defendants 1 and 2 took care of them and managed the properties on behalf of the minor children. Ramarathinam educated the plaintiff out of compassion. The plaintiff belongs to Backward Vanniyar community, while Ramarathinam and Lalitha belonged to an orthodox Brahmin community. After the death of the parents, Lakshmi Nagarajan, the maternal aunt of defendants 1 and 2 took care of them and managed the properties on behalf of the minor children. The plaintiff was merely permitted to reside in the carshed because he is the son of the servant-maid of the house and is helping their family by doing errand work. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any partition. 4. The facts in C.S.No.665 of 1987 (O.S.A.No.46 of 1998) could be stated as follows: (a) The plaintiffs in this suit are the defendants in C.S.No.502 of 1983. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the children of the said Ramarathinam and Lalitha and the third plaintiff is the mother of the said Ramarathinam. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the carshed from the defendant who is the plaintiff in C.S.No.502 of 1983. (b) In this suit, the case of the plaintiffs is as follows: Defendant Ravichandran is the son of a servant-maid in the house of Ramarathinam and Lalitha. The said defendant was educated by them out of compassion taking into account the fact that he was the boy of the servant-maid Saradha employed there and whose father has deserted his mother. Therefore, he was allowed to stay in the carshed. After the death of the parents of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the defendant started giving trouble to the plaintiffs. So, on 6.10.1994 a notice was issued by the plaintiffs revoking the permission and asking to vacate the carshed and leave the place. Since that was not complied with, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for direction to the defendant vacate the suit property and deliver possession and also to pay the damages. (c) The case of the defendant, as stated in the plaint in C.S.No.502 of 1983 as plaintiff, is that he was adopted by the said Ramarathinam and Lalitha Ramarathinam in the year 1959, that he was brought up and educated by the adoptive parents and as such, he is one of the sharers of the entire property of the adoptive parents and that therefore, he is not liable to be evicted and no damages could be claimed from him. 5. 5. On the above pleadings, various issues were framed in both the suits. Though the issues framed were many, the important point for determination in both the suits is whether the plaintiff in C.S.No.502 of 1983 was the adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha and whether the plaintiffs in C.S.No.665 of 1987 are entitled to a decree for recovery of possession after evicting the defendant. 6. The issues in both the suits are interdependent and inter-linked. The result in C.S.No.665 of 1987 depends upon the result in C.S.No.502 of 1983. In other words, the main issue would be whether the adoption of the plaintiff in C.S.No.502 of 1983 by late Ramarathinam and Lalitha Ramarathinam is true and valid in law. 7. In order to decide the above main issue, both the suits were tried jointly and common evidence was recorded. In order to prove the plea of adoption, the plaintiff has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and filed Exs.P-1 to P-6. For disproving this claim, the defendants have examined D.Ws.1 to 7 and filed Exs.D-1 to D-39 on their side. 8. On consideration of the materials placed by the respective parties, the learned single Judge concluded that the alleged adoption and the evidence relating to the same are false and consequently dismissed the suit in C.S.No.502 of 1983 and decree the suit in C.S.No.665 of 1987. 9. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and decree contending that the learned single Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly and the same suffers from illegality and consequently, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 10. Mr.K.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both these appeals, would contend that the fact of adoption has been clearly proved by the evidence of P.W.1, who is the natural mother of the appellant, that the various school records filed by the appellant and the defendants would show that the appellant was treated as adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha throughout their life, that these materials have not been properly considered by the trial court and that this Court being the appellate forum has got powers to reassess the evidence and come to the conclusion that the adoption of the appellant as the son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha was valid. He would also cite some authorities with regard to the position of law relating to the question of adoption. 11. He would also cite some authorities with regard to the position of law relating to the question of adoption. 11. On the other hand, Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents pointed out that there are no acceptable materials to prove the claim of the appellant as adopted son, whereas the defendants established through the documents that the appellant was given education by Ramarathinam and Lalitha out of compassion not as adopted son but as an orphan and that the judgment and decree of the trial court have got to be confirmed. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the depositions, records, impugned judgment and the various citations. 13. The leading case on adoption is the case of Kishori Lal v. Mt.Chaltibai Kishori Lal v. Mt.Chaltibai Kishori Lal v. Mt.Chaltibai , A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 504: Following this decision, there are number of judgments intepreting various sections of the Act relating to the nature of proof to establish the adoption. Those decisions are as follows: (1) Sitabai v. Ramachandra , A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 343; (2) A.S.Sailaja v. Principal, Kurnool Medical College A.S.Sailaja v. Principal, Kurnool Medical College A.S.Sailaja v. Principal, Kurnool Medical College , A.I.R. 1986 A.P. 209: (1986)1 A.P.L.J. 334 ; (3) Rajasa Pandiani v. Goluananda Panda , A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 962; (4) Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti , (1968)2 S.C.J. 316: (1967)3 S.C.R. 687 :(1968)2 MLJ. (S.C.) 55:(1968)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 55:A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1761. (5) Madhusudan Das v. Narayani Bai , A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 114: (1983)1 S.C.C. 35 ; (6) Lalla Ram v. Gobri Ram Lalla Ram v. Gobri Ram Lalla Ram v. Gobri Ram , A.I.R. 1972 All. 540; (7) Kashi Nath v. Mahadeo , A.I.R. 1977 Pat. 199; (8) Urmila Dei v. Hementa Kumar Mohanta , A.I.R. 1993 Ori. 213; (9) Nemichand Shantilal Pathi v. Basantabai , A.I.R. 1994 Bom. 235; (10) Arjun Bachor v. Buchi Banchehor , A.I.R. 1995 Ori. 32; (11) Balinki Padmano v. Gopalakrishna Padhano , A.I.R. 1964 Ori. 117; (12) Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi , (1971)1 S.C.J. 52:(1971)1 S.C.R.101; A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1286(13) Lakshman Singh Kotiari v. Smt.Rup Kumar Lakshman Singh Kotiari v. Smt.Rup Kumar Lakshman Singh Kotiari v. Smt.Rup Kumar , A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1378:(1962)2 MLJ. (S.C.)112:(1962)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 112:(1962)2 S.C.J. 472; (14) Raghunath Behra v. Balaram Dehera , A.I.R. 1996 Ori. 117; (12) Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi , (1971)1 S.C.J. 52:(1971)1 S.C.R.101; A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1286(13) Lakshman Singh Kotiari v. Smt.Rup Kumar Lakshman Singh Kotiari v. Smt.Rup Kumar Lakshman Singh Kotiari v. Smt.Rup Kumar , A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1378:(1962)2 MLJ. (S.C.)112:(1962)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 112:(1962)2 S.C.J. 472; (14) Raghunath Behra v. Balaram Dehera , A.I.R. 1996 Ori. 38.; (15) Golak Chandra v. Krutibas , A.I.R. 1979 Ori. 205 14. Bearing in mind the well-settled principles relating to adoption, we would now examine the evidence let in by both the parties. 15. The plaintiff has let in two sets of evidence before the trial court. The first aspect, namely, the ceremony for adoption has been spoken to by P.W.1 Saradha who is the natural mother of the plaintiff. Except oral evidence of P.W.1, there is no other documentary evidence produced to support this. The second aspect is that the adoptive parents held out the plaintiff claiming to have been adopted as their son for a long time without any controversy. In order to establish this aspect, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.2 and P.Ws.3 and 4 through whom Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. 16. We shall now refer to the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 would stated that when she was employed as a domestic servant in the house of Ramarathinam and his wife, they requested P.W.1 to give her third son in adoption, since the wife of Ramarathinam was medically advised by the Doctors that she would not beget child. She would also state that she was informed by the adoptive parents that unless an operation was done, there was no chance of Lalitha bearing any child in her womb. This alleged request was made by the adoptive parents in 1959. 17. Admittedly, the marriage between Ramarathinam and Lalitha was solemnized in the year 1957. According to P.W.1, the Doctors advised Lalitha that she must undergo an operation and only then, she would be able to bear a child in her womb. In such a case, Lalitha would have undergone an operation and waited for some more time. P.W.1 would admit in cross-examination that she herself got the first child only after 2 to 3 years subsequent to marriage. In such a case, Lalitha would have undergone an operation and waited for some more time. P.W.1 would admit in cross-examination that she herself got the first child only after 2 to 3 years subsequent to marriage. Therefore, either Lalitha would have waited for some more years or she, having rich parents, would have naturally gone for a second opinion from Doctors in Madras, before deciding to take her son in adoption. 18. Even according to the plaintiff, the second defendant, the daughter Vijayashrimala was born in the year 1964 and thereafter, the first defendant Ramesh Jayaram was born in 1966. There is nothing to indicate that in between Lalitha had undergone any operation. There is also no material to show that the said Lalitha took some special treatment from Doctors to beget child. Therefore, the story of adoption, within two years after marriage even without resorting to the alleged operation, by the Brahmin parents, that too, from the domestic servants family who belong to the Vanniyar community looks so artificial and improbable. 19. It is stated by P.W.1 that the adoption took place in a Homam ceremony. According to her, the Homam was performed by a Brahmin Priest and in that ceremony the parents of both the parties were present. She would state that her son, the plaintiffs name was originally Rajendran and that on the date of ceremony, when the Homam was performed, the plaintiffs name was put as Ravichandran. These details of the Homam ceremony and giving and taking of the son Rajendran in adoption as Ravichandran were not mentioned in the pleadings. Furthermore, before filing the suit, the legal notices were sent to the defendants as well as to one Lakshmi Nagarajan, who is the aunt of defendants 1 and 2 and in those notices as well there is no reference about the details of the adoption. 20. P.W.1 the natural mother and P.W.2, the plaintiff belong to Vanniyar community. Ramarathinam and Lalitha Ramarathinam were hailing from an orthodox Brahmin family. For the first time in the Court, P.W.1 would state that Homam ceremony was performed for giving her son in adoption to the adoptive parents. 21. The proviso to Sec.11 of the Act prescribes, that even the performance of the Homam is not necessary, but the giving and taking of the child in adoption is essential. For the first time in the Court, P.W.1 would state that Homam ceremony was performed for giving her son in adoption to the adoptive parents. 21. The proviso to Sec.11 of the Act prescribes, that even the performance of the Homam is not necessary, but the giving and taking of the child in adoption is essential. The object of the corporeal giving and taking in adoption is to secure due publicity. To achieve this, it is essential to have a formal ceremony. For a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite, a ceremony imperative in all adoptions, whatever the caste. The evidence to prove the ceremony of giving all suspicions of fraud and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. 22. As held by the Apex Court, the oral evidence of the witnesses deposing about the ceremony of adoption shall be trustworthy and there should be details of the events in ceremony ending with the usual feast following it. In the ceremony it is very much essential that the natural parent shall give the child in adoption and the adoptive parent shall declare in the presence of the relatives and friends, who attended the ceremoney that they accepted the child in adoption. As stated earlier, the object of this declaration in the midst of members of both the families is to secure due publicity. If no such ceremony is performed, then the intention of the parties cannot be gathered. 23. Moreover, when there is no registered document pertaining to adoption under Sec.16 of the Act, then the court has to be very cautious and extremely alter to guard the persons against being ensnared by the unscrupulous persons who indulge in grabbing the properties. Further, as held by the Apex Court, the plaintiff has a heavy duty to prove the ceremony of adoption, in the absence of any registered document to explain to the satisfaction of the conscience of the court regarding such an adoption by producing accounts to show that there were expenses incurred due to the ceremony of adoption and by examining the Priest who performed the ceremony. 24. In the instant case, there is no registered document nor details of the ceremony mentioned in the plaint. 24. In the instant case, there is no registered document nor details of the ceremony mentioned in the plaint. Even in the Court, P.W.1 would not give any details of the declaration of the giving and taking of her son in adoption. Besides this, the accounts showing the expenditure for the ceremony were not produced and the Priest who was said to have performed the ceremony was not examined. 25. The other aspects also could be noticed to hold that the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable. According to P.W.1, her husband Munusamy was also present at the time of adoption. When a suggestion was put by the counsel for the defendants to P.W.1 that she was deserted by her husband Munusamy in Kanchipuram and that thereafter, due to the flood which destroyed the hut in Kanchipuram, she came to Madras and joined as servant-maid in the family of the defendants, it was denied by her. However, it is to be noted that in the Orphans School record Ex.D-29 when the plaintiff was admitted in the said school in the year 1970 it was mentioned in the school record that the plaintiffs mother was Saradha who was deserted by her husband Munusamy long back. If this is true, the adoption by the adoptive parents from Munusamy and Saradha in 1959 would not have been true. 26. Moreover, it is the case of P.W.1 that after adoption in the year 1959, she left the place of the defendants and went to the different area and that she never came back to see her natural son. The specific questions and answers put to her in cross-examination are as follows: Q: Did you enquire your child after giving in adoption. A: Thereafter, I have not enquired about my child. Q: Did you at any point of time visit the school or college where the plaintiff studied. Do you know where they have given education to him. A: Thereafter, I never enquired about the plaintiff. I never enquired about the school or college where he studied. These answers would not be true because in Ex.D-22, which is an admission application dated 11.7.1969 relating to the plaintiff in Ramakrishna Mission High School, P.W.1 Saradha put her thumb impression in the column ‘signature of the parent’. A: Thereafter, I never enquired about the plaintiff. I never enquired about the school or college where he studied. These answers would not be true because in Ex.D-22, which is an admission application dated 11.7.1969 relating to the plaintiff in Ramakrishna Mission High School, P.W.1 Saradha put her thumb impression in the column ‘signature of the parent’. In column No.7, the name of Munusamy (deserted) as father and name of mother as Saradha, are mentioned in the said application. Therefore, when the plaintiff was aged about 10 years, he was admitted in the Ramakrishna Mission Boys’ School, T.Nagar by P.W.1. This material would falsify her statement made in her cross-examination. So, in the light of these things, the evidence of P.W.1 relating to adoption in unreliable and unacceptable. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove through P.W.1 that there was an adoption in the year 1959. 27. Regarding the proof of valid adoption, it could be viewed in yet another angle. Under Sec.5(1) of the Act, adoption made in contravention of the provisions of the Act is void. One of the conditions put under Sec.11(iv) is that when the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the adoptive other shall be 21 years older than the person to be adopted. Lalitha, the adoptive mother was born on 27.12.1937, as stated by D.W.1 Lakshmi Nagarajan, the sister of the said Lalitha. There is not dispute with regard to the date of birth of the said Lalitha, as the same date has been given as the date of birth in her passport also. Even according to the plaintiff, as mentioned in the school records, his date of birth is 1.10.1958. According to the plaintiffs case through P.W.1, when the plaintiff was one year old, he was given in adoption to the adoptive parents, namely, Ramarathinam and Lalitha. So, the age difference between the adoptive mother and the adopted son does not show that the adoptive mother is 21 years older than the adopted son. Therefore, it cannot be said, even assuming that adopting is true for the arguments sake, that the condition No.4 of Sec.11 was complied with. However, on analysing the evidence of P.W.1, since we come to the conclusion that the adoption was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, we need not give much importance to this aspect. 28. Therefore, it cannot be said, even assuming that adopting is true for the arguments sake, that the condition No.4 of Sec.11 was complied with. However, on analysing the evidence of P.W.1, since we come to the conclusion that the adoption was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, we need not give much importance to this aspect. 28. As stated earlier, in order to prove the second aspect that he was treated as an adopted son for a long time by the adoptive parents without any controversy, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 and Exs.P- 2 to P-6 are being relied upon. Ex.P-2 is the death certificate relating to Lalitha. Ex.P-3 is the death certificate in respect of Ramarathinam. These exhibits would not be of any use to the plaintiff. 29. Ex.P-4 dated 24.5.1976 is the application for admission in Pre- University Course in New College, Madras. The plaintiff would admit in the cross-examination that this Ex.P-4 was filled up by his own handwriting. In the first page he filled up the community column as ‘Vanniyar’. Over the page, in the column “Name of the father/guardian”, the word ‘father’ was struck off. It was written by the plaintiff as V.Ramarathinam in ‘guardian’ column No.8. In column No.9, the word ‘father’ was struck off and the plaintiff himself wrote as guardian by filling up the column by writing the name of Ramarathinam and his address. In the third page in Guarantee Form attached. Mr.Ramarathinam himself singed in the guardian column after striking off the word ‘parent’. When the plaintiff as P.W.2 was suggested that in page 3 of Ex.P-4 under the heading “Guarantee” the word ‘son’ has been struck off and only the ‘ward’ has been retained by Ramarathinam, the plaintiff said “yes”. Though this document was relied upon by the plaintiff, it does not indicate that the said Ramarathinam was the adoptive father of the plaintiff. P.W.2 himself would admit that he struck off the word ‘father’ and filled up the guardian column as Ramarathinam. Thus, this document would only show that Ramarathinam was the guardian. 30. The next document is Ex.P-5. This is the Register of Our Ladys Private Kinder Garden Nursery School relating to the year 1962. This document was marked through P.W.3, a Teacher of that school. Thus, this document would only show that Ramarathinam was the guardian. 30. The next document is Ex.P-5. This is the Register of Our Ladys Private Kinder Garden Nursery School relating to the year 1962. This document was marked through P.W.3, a Teacher of that school. In this Register, when the plaintiff Ravichandran was admitted in the school, in the column of name and residence of parent/guardian, it was filled up as V.Ramarathinam and his address. In this column, since both the words, namely, parent and guardian are not struck off, it cannot be stated that the said Ramarathinam shall be considered to be the adoptive father, especially when the word ‘guardian’ was not struck off. So, this document also would not be of any use to the plaintiff. 31. Ex.P-6 is the legal notice issued by the third defendant through her Lawyer Mr.Sathiyaseelan, P.W.4 to Lakshmi Nagarajan, the aunt of defendants 1 and 2, stating that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Ramarathinam. This also does not help the plaintiff, as the third defendant disown this Ex.P-6 and P.W.4, the Advocate himself would state that he did not receive any instructions directly from the third defendant. 32. Thus, none of the exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff would go to show that he was never treated by Lalitha and Ramarathinam as their adopted son. As a matter of fact, in most of the documents, as stated earlier, the name of Ramarathinam was mentioned only as guardian. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove either through the oral evidence or through the documentary evidence that he was the adopted son of the parents of defendants 1 and 2. 33. On the other hand, the defendants have examined D.Ws.1 to 7 and filed Exs.D-1 to D-39 on their side, which would make it obvious that the plaintiff continues to be the son of Saradha, P.W.1 the natural mother and that the said (late) Ramarathinam was only a guardian. Let us now discus about the relevant exhibits filed on behalf of the defendants one by one. 34. Ex.D-1 is the letter written by Ramarathinam on 2.12.1981 addressed to Tahsildar, T.Nagar, requesting for issuance of Succession Certificate after the death of his wife Lalitha. Let us now discus about the relevant exhibits filed on behalf of the defendants one by one. 34. Ex.D-1 is the letter written by Ramarathinam on 2.12.1981 addressed to Tahsildar, T.Nagar, requesting for issuance of Succession Certificate after the death of his wife Lalitha. In the said letter, he said that his wife had expired on 2.5.1981 leaving behind the undersigned (Ramarathinam), the daughter by name Vijayashree Mala and son R.Ramesh Jayarama. In this letter he has not mentioned that the plaintiff was his adopted son. 35. Ex.D-2 is the declaration made in the affidavit by the said Ramarathinam and defendants 1 and 2, the daughter and son declaring that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Lalitha. This was signed by these three persons on 3.1.1982 which was attested by the Commissioner of Oaths, High Court, Madras, which was sent to the L.I.C. 36. Ex.D-3 is the invitation for Upanayanam ceremony for the first defendant Ramesh Jayarama held on 2.3.1975 at T.Nagar, Madras. These documents were marked through D.W.2 Ramesh Jayaram, the first defendant. In these documents, the name of the plaintiff was never mentioned as the adopted son or the legal heir of the alleged adoptive parents. 37. Ex.D-7 is the document relating to the assessment of estate duty in respect of the estate of late Lalitha. In the said document also, it is mentioned that Ramarathinam and his two children, viz., defendants 1 and 2 were the only legal heirs of late Lalitha. The plaintiffs name was not shown in the said document. 38. Ex.D-15 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to Lakshmi Nagarajan, the sister of Lalitha, on 3.1.1983. This notice was issued after the death of Ramarathinam on 23.12.1982. In the said notice, he never mentioned that he was the adopted son of Lalitha and Ramarathinam. Ex.D-16 is the reply dated 17.1.1983 by Lakshmi Nagarajan through lawyer stating that the plaintiff was not the kartha and he was only a servant of late Ramarathinam. Admittedly, there was no rejoinder for this reply notice Ex.D-16. These Exs.D-15 and D-16 were marked through D.W.1, Lakshmi Nagarajan. 39. Ex.D-19 is the application for admission in the Corporation Boys’ Higher Secondary School, Madras, where the plaintiff was admitted in VIII Standard. In the said application, it is mentioned that one Narasimhan was the guardian for Ravichandran, the plaintiff. Admittedly, there was no rejoinder for this reply notice Ex.D-16. These Exs.D-15 and D-16 were marked through D.W.1, Lakshmi Nagarajan. 39. Ex.D-19 is the application for admission in the Corporation Boys’ Higher Secondary School, Madras, where the plaintiff was admitted in VIII Standard. In the said application, it is mentioned that one Narasimhan was the guardian for Ravichandran, the plaintiff. It is also mentioned that he was staying with the guardian. In the parent column, the name of Ramarathinam was shown. However, P.W.1 would admit that the said Narasimhan who was stated to be the guardian was employed as a Clerk in M/s.Jayaram Iyer and Company and that the said Narasimhan, who accompanied the boy to get admission, filled up the particulars in the application form. In the said application form it is also mentioned that the boy belonged to Hindu Vanniyar Community. Admittedly this was not filed up by Ramarathinam nor his signature was put. 40. Ex.D-20 is the application form for the admission in Government (Board) High School, Nanganallur, when the plaintiff was admitted in VII Standard. In the column ‘religion and caste’, it is filled up as ‘Hindu, Vanniyar’. In the column ‘name of parent’ and full address’, it is mentioned as “Saradha (mother), No.1, Sundarambal Street, T.Nagar, Madras-17. In the bottom of the application in the declaration of date of birth of Ravichandran, Ramarathinam put his signature as guardian after striking off the word ‘parent’. Ex.D-21 is the Record Sheet for having studied VI Standard in Gandhi Mission Vidhyalayam Aided Middle School, Walajahpet. This is dated 27.7.1971. As per this Record Sheet, Ravichandran, the plaintiff was promoted from VI Standard to VII Standard and he left the school on 27.7.1971. It is mentioned in this that Saradha as mother, Ramarathinam as guardian and Hindu Vanniyar. 41. Ex.D-22 dated 11.7.1969 is the Admission Register issued by Ramakrishna Mission Boys’ High School, T.Nagar,Chennai. In the said application for admission for VI Standard, it is filled up as the plaintiff was living with guardian and guardians name is Ramarathinam. In the column of ‘name of parent’, it is mentioned that Munusamy (deserted) as father and Saradha as mother. In this application over the page, the left thumb impression of Saradha, natural mother is available in the parents column. No doubt, it is true that the name of Lalitha Ramarathinam was written and the same was struck off. In the column of ‘name of parent’, it is mentioned that Munusamy (deserted) as father and Saradha as mother. In this application over the page, the left thumb impression of Saradha, natural mother is available in the parents column. No doubt, it is true that the name of Lalitha Ramarathinam was written and the same was struck off. However, this will be of no consequence, especially in the earlier columns, it is filled up that Ramarathinam was only a guardian. This document has already been referred to in the earlier paragraphs, while analysing the evidence of P.W.1. 42. Ex.D-24 is the very important document. This is a letter dated 22.11.1981 written by late Ramarathinam addressed to the Inspector General of Police (Crime), Madras. In this letter he complained against the plaintiff stating that the said Ravichandran, an orphan, son of Saradha and Munusamy, who was working as a servant in his house had been creating trouble and threatening him and other inmates with the weapons. P.W.1 would admit that the signature found in Ex.D-24 is that of Ramarathinam. It is clear from this document that the said Ramarathinam never treated the plaintiff as an adopted son. The documents Exs.D-19, D-20, D-21, D-22 and D-24 were marked through P.W.2, the plaintiff while he was cross-examined. 43. Ex.D-26 is the legal notice issued by the defendants on 6.10.1984. By this notice, the plaintiff was called upon to deliver the vacant possession of the carshed on or before 1.12.1984. In the said notice, it is stated that the plaintiff was indulging in so many illegal activities in the carshed in the company of various third parties, thereby causing very great inconvenience and nuisance to the defendants and the member of their family. The acknowledgement of the said notice is Ex.D-27. This would show that the said notice was received by the plaintiff on 8.10.1984. However, there was no reply for this. This evidence is quite relevant in this context, since P.W.2, the plaintiff himself would admit that he was arrested by the police, while he was exhibiting blue films and witnessing along with his friends in the carshed and in that case he was convicted on plea of guilty. 44. Ex.D-29 of the admission register of Gandhi Mission Vidhyalayam, Walajahpet. In this document, the entries relating to the admission of Ravichandran, the plaintiff are found. 44. Ex.D-29 of the admission register of Gandhi Mission Vidhyalayam, Walajahpet. In this document, the entries relating to the admission of Ravichandran, the plaintiff are found. After studying VI Standard in Ramakrishna Mission Boys’ High School, T.Nagar,Chennai, the plaintiff was taken out and admitted in the said school at Walajahpet. This relates to the academic year 1970-71. In this document, it is mentioned in serial number 759 that Ravichandran belongs to Vanniyar community and his mother is one Saradha, a servant-maid. In the guardian column Ramarathinams name was mentioned. This document was marked through D.W.3, the Head Master of Gandhi Mission Vidhyalayam Middle School, Walajahpet. 45. Ex.D-31 is the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School, Nanganallur on 15.6.1974, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff was belonging to Hindu Vanniyar Community. Though the name of Ramarathinam was mentioned in column 2, the word ‘parent or guardian’ was not struck off. 46. Ex.D-32 is the admission register from Nungambakkam Corporation Boys’ High School relating to the plaintiff. In this document, it is mentioned that the plaintiff belongs to Vanniyar community and the name of Ramarathinam is found in both the columns ‘name of parent’ and name of guardian’ The above documents Exs.D-31 and D-32 were marked through D.W.4. 47. Thus, these documents filed on behalf of the defendants would clearly show that the plaintiff was never treated as an adopted son of the Brahmin parent, and on the other hand, he was considered to be the son of Saradha, the natural mother and belonged to Vanniyar community, that Ramarathinam was only acting as a guardian and that out of compassion, the plaintiff was educated by putting him in so many schools despite that he had not shown progress in his studies. As a matter of fact, when a question was put by the court whether any Upanayanam function was performed for him by Ramarathinam, he replied to the court that it was not celebrated by Ramarathinam and that he told him that Upanayanam would be performed to him and that he not know why he had not performed that ceremony to him. This would also make it clear that he was never accepted as an adopted son of the Brahmin family. 48. This would also make it clear that he was never accepted as an adopted son of the Brahmin family. 48. It is quite appropriate, at this stage, to note that third defendant Rajammal, who is the mother of late Ramarathinam, though originally conceded the right of plaintiffs 1/4th share in the properties as adopted son through her notice and first written statement, disowned the notice and the first written statement stating that she was persuaded by the plaintiff to sign those documents by falsely telling her that she could agitate for her rights, as defendants 1 and 2 denied to give her share. In fact, the third defendant Rajammal was examined herself as one of the witnesses (D.W.3) and narrated the circumstances under which she filed the first written statement and emphatically denied that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha. 49. These materials, in our opinion, have been properly appreciated and considered in extenso by the learned single Judge and correct reasonings have been given in the impugned judgment rejecting the claim of the appellant herein. Therefore, the submission made by Mr.K.Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant, would not, in our view, merit acceptance, as there are overwhelming materials both oral and documentary to prove that the appellant was throughout considered as the son of servant-maid and was never treated as an adopted son. 50. In view of the above finding that the appellant/plaintiff in C.S.No.502 of 1983 is not the adopted son of Ramarathinam and Lalitha and not entitled to claim any share in the suit property, it has to be necessarily held that the appellant/defendant in C.S.No.665 of 1987 has no right to continue to reside in the carshed, as the permission had already been revoked by the issuance of a legal notice, that consequently, the continued possession of the appellant Ravichandran has to be declared illegal and that therefore, he is liable to pay damages for use and occupation, by confirming the judgment and decree passed in C.S.No.665 of 1987. 51. To sum up:(1) Appellant Ravichandran has not proved the adoption by acceptance evidence through P.W.1. Essential ceremony, namely, the giving and taking in adoption is neither mentioned in the pleadings nor stated in the evidence. The evidence regarding the expenditure incurred for adoption ceremony by producing account books was not let in. 51. To sum up:(1) Appellant Ravichandran has not proved the adoption by acceptance evidence through P.W.1. Essential ceremony, namely, the giving and taking in adoption is neither mentioned in the pleadings nor stated in the evidence. The evidence regarding the expenditure incurred for adoption ceremony by producing account books was not let in. The Priest who was stated to have performed the Homam ceremony was not examined. The deposition of P.W.1 cannot be stated to be free from suspicious features, as her evidence is contradictory to the documentary evidence. In the absence of a registered document pertaining to adoption under Sec.16 of the Act, the heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the adoption and the same has not at all been discharged. (2) Both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties through the witnesses would not prove that the appellant Ravichandran was treated for a long time as the adopted son without any controversy. On the other hand, the exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff and some of the admitted documents filed on behalf of the defendants would clearly show that the appellant was never treated as an adopted son and that he was given education by Ramarathinam as a guardian treating the said Ravichandran as an orphan. 52. In view of the above conclusions, both the appeals are dismissed with costs. The judgments and decree passed in both the suits are hereby confirmed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.4767 of 1998 stands dismissed.