Judgment : K. Natarajan, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dated 12. 1997 in A.S. No. 10 of 1986, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif in O.S. No. 262 of 1977, dated 1. 1986. 2. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alleging the family of the plaintiff is a prestigious family in Kunnankottai Nadu, spread over 22 villages mainly comprising Kallar community. Further, the family of the plaintiff continued as the Pattathu Ambalam for the 22 villages and the successor is either the son or the grandson of the family. In the days of Pandya Kings, the precedessor of the plaintiff has been appointed as the Pattathu Ambalam for Kunnankottai Nadu and the Pattathu Ambalam is the representative of the Kunnankottai Nattars and he was permitted to negotiate with the Jamindar of Sivaganga. He also has a right to inaugurate the car festival in the Shiva Temple at Kallal village and receive other honours. The plaintiffs natural fathers junior paternal uncle Subbaiah Servai was the last Pattathu Ambalam. Since Subbaiah Servai had no male issue, on 6. 1973, he took the plaintiff in adoption. On the death of Subbaiah Servai, the plaintiff did his funeral rites and succeeded as the Pattathu Ambalam. While so, taking advantage that the plaintiff was a minor, the first defendant, alongwith his brother, defendants 2 to 4, gave out he has been elected as the Pattathu Ambalam and began to claim the honours to which the Pattathu Ambalam is entitled to. The plaintiff sent a petition to the Sub-Collector, Devakottai, on which the enquiry by the police had been conducted. Since cloud has been caused by the defendants as to the rights of the plaintiff in discharging his functions as Pattathu Ambalam he was compelled to file the suit. 3. The defendants resisted the suit stating, the claim of the plaintiff that his predecessors were functioning as the Pattathu Ambalam of Kunnankottai Nadu, by succession, from time immemorial is not true. On the other hand, the predecessors of the defendants are functioning as the Pattathu Amabalam. Since Subbaiah Servai died without any male issue, he took in adoption Subbaiah, who is related to him as a distant Pangali, The allegation that on 6. 1973 Subbaiah Servai adopted the plaintiff is not correct. 4. On the other hand, the predecessors of the defendants are functioning as the Pattathu Amabalam. Since Subbaiah Servai died without any male issue, he took in adoption Subbaiah, who is related to him as a distant Pangali, The allegation that on 6. 1973 Subbaiah Servai adopted the plaintiff is not correct. 4. The learned District Munsif, Devakottai on the pleadings of the parties formulated the necessary issues. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties, oral and documentary, the learned District Munsif concluded that the ingredients of Section 11(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956 (Act 78 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have not been satisfactorily established by the plaintiff and the mere fact that he did the funeral rites of Subbaiah Servai, the last Pattathu Ambalam, will not prove valid and legal adoption. In that view, he dismissed the suit, however, without costs. The plaintiff who was aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai preferred A.S. No. 10 of 1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge formulated the necessary points for determination and, on a reappraisal of the evidence, held that the evidence on record clearly proves that the plaintiff did the funeral rites of the last Pattathu Ambalam Subbaiah Servai, which could have been done by him only if he is the adopted son. The learned Subordinate Judge did not record any finding as to whether the ingredients of Section 11(vi) of the Act have been proved by the evidence on record. Ultimately, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree by the Trial Court and decreed the suit with costs, which has given rise to the present second appeal. 5. The substantial question that has been debated before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no written document to evidence the adoption of the plaintiff by Subbaiah Servai and there is also no satisfactory oral evidence to prove the condition laid down in Section 11(vi) of the Act with regard to the giving and taking of adoption. It was submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge had put the cart before the horse, viz., without recording a finding as to whether the ingredients of Section 11(vi) of the Act have been satisfied or not, the learned Subordinate Judge had given an erroneous finding that as there is evidence to show the plaintiff did the funeral rites of Subbaiah Servai, it has to be concluded that he had been adopted validly, which has led to miscarriage of justice, Section 11(vi) of the Act reads as follows : 11(vi). "the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or the guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place of family where it has been brought up to the family of its adoption : Provided that the performance of Datta Homan, shall not be essential to the validity of an adoption:" 6. The attention of this Court is invited to a decision reported in Rahasa Pandiani v. Gokulananda Panda, , wherein the Apex Court has highlighted the caution necessary in upholding a case of adoption and the risk involved in it. In paragraph 4, it has been held as follows : "Before we advert to the relevant circumstances we consider it appropriate to advert to note of caution sounded by this Court as early as in 1968 in Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, . We can do no better than to quote the relevant passage from the judgment of Kapur, J.: "As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or mere remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. Failure to produce accounts, in circumstances such as has been proved in the present case, would be a very suspicious circumstance. The importance of accounts was emphasised by the Privy Council in Sootrugun v. Sabitra, 1834 (2) Knapp. 287; in Diwakar Rao v. Chandlal Rao; AIR 1916 PC 81; in Kishorilal v. Chunilal; 1908 (36) Ind. Failure to produce accounts, in circumstances such as has been proved in the present case, would be a very suspicious circumstance. The importance of accounts was emphasised by the Privy Council in Sootrugun v. Sabitra, 1834 (2) Knapp. 287; in Diwakar Rao v. Chandlal Rao; AIR 1916 PC 81; in Kishorilal v. Chunilal; 1908 (36) Ind. App, 9; in Musa Mat Lai Kunwar v. Chiranji Lal; 1909 (37) Ind. App. 1; and in Padmalal v. Fakira Debya, AIR 1931 PC 84." When the plaintiff relies on oral evidence in support of the claim that he was adopted by the adoptive father in accordance with the Hindu rites, and it is not supported by any registered document to establish that such an adoption had really and as a matter of fact taken place, the Court has to act with a great deal of caution and circumspection. Be it realised that setting up a spurious adoption is not less frequent than concocting a spurious Will, and equally, if not more difficult to unmask. And the Court has to be extremely alert and vigilant to guard against being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practices out of their lust for property. If there are any suspicious circumstance, just as the propounder of the Will is obliged to dispel the cloud of suspicion, the burden is on one who claims to have been adopted to dispel the same beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of an adoption which is not supported by a registered document or any evidence of a clinching nature or there exists suspicious circumstances, the same must be explained to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court by the party contending that there was such an adoption. Such is the position as an adoption would divert the normal and natural course of succession. Experience of life shows that just as there have been spurious claims about execution of a Will, there have been spurious claims about adoption having taken place. And the Court has, therefore, to be aware of the risk involved in upholding the claim of adoption if there are circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the Court and the conscience of the Court is not satisfied that the evidence preferred to support such an adoption is beyond reproach. 7. And the Court has, therefore, to be aware of the risk involved in upholding the claim of adoption if there are circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the Court and the conscience of the Court is not satisfied that the evidence preferred to support such an adoption is beyond reproach. 7. In Thavamani v. The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Devakottai, , this Court has held, in paragraphs 28 and 33, as follows : 28. Necessary ingredient for adopting is giving of the child by the natural parent to the adoptive parent who takes the child -The giving and taking is the most important feature in adoption, for, without it, there cannot be any valid adoption. The same is sought to be proved by two witnesses. The lower Court has simply believed the case. 33. One big circumstance against the second respondent is that from the date of the so-called adoption, till Chinnammals death, no evidence has been filed by him to show that atleast they were living together as mother and son. No evidence has been let in to show that the members of the public treated the second respondent as the son of Muthuraman and Chinnammal. From the various documents that have been filed in this case, he is even now known only as the son of Nallathambai, and not as the son of Muthuraman, husband of Chinnammal. There is also no evidence to show that the second respondent treated Chinnammal as his mother, or Muthuraman as his father, and vice versa. All the documents that are filed in this case are after the dispute began." 8. In Kishori Lal v. Chaltibai (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that the mere fact of performance of funeral rites does not necessarily prove a valid adoption. The performance of funeral rites frequently varies according to the circumstances of each case and the view and usage of different families. More frequently, in the absence of the son, junior relations like a younger brother, or a younger nephew performs the obsequial ceremonies, which is not conclusive proof to prove a valid adoption. 9. In the present case on hand, though ten witnesses have been examined on the side of the respondent/plaintiff, only P.Ws. More frequently, in the absence of the son, junior relations like a younger brother, or a younger nephew performs the obsequial ceremonies, which is not conclusive proof to prove a valid adoption. 9. In the present case on hand, though ten witnesses have been examined on the side of the respondent/plaintiff, only P.Ws. 1 and 2 viz., the plaintiff and his natural father, have spoken about the ceremonies, which have been conducted at the time of adopting the plaintiff, by Subbaiah Servai, as his adopted son. The other witnesses have not given any evidence regarding ceremonies or the ingredients stipulated in Section 11(vi) of the Act. According to P.W. 1 on 6. 1973, on the date when he was taken in adoption by Subbaiah Servai, Mu. Peri Chidambaram, Chitha Natarajan, Peri Udayappa, C. Ramaiah Supa. Kasi, Mu. Kathiresan C. Karuppiah and some others had come to the house of his natural parents and adopted him for the post of Pattathu Periya Ambalam. The plaint has not spoken of the fact that Subbaiah Servai or his wife came to the house of his natural parents or that the above persons came to the house of his natural parents under the authority of his adoptive parents and his natural father P.W. 2. Sowmiya Murthy handed him over to them with intent of transfer him from the family of his birth to the family of Subbaiah Servai. According to P.W. 1, no ceremony was conducted in the house of his natural parents whereas P.W. 2 had deposed, certain ceremonies were conducted in his house. According to P.W. 2, Subbaiah Servai did not come to his house on the date of adoption since he was unwell and bed-ridden. However, his wife Karuppayi Ammal came to this house and after the ceremonies were over in his house she took the plaintiff to her house and made him stand before her husband. Thereafter, he entrusted the plaintiff Durai Pandy to Subbiah Servai as his boy and returned to his house. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the aforestated oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not satisfy the ingredients stipulated under Section 11(vi) of the Act as both of them have not stated that the plaintiff was handed over to Karuppayi Ammual, the wife of Subbiah Servai by P.W. 2 and she accepted the plaintiff to be their adopted boy. 1 and 2 did not satisfy the ingredients stipulated under Section 11(vi) of the Act as both of them have not stated that the plaintiff was handed over to Karuppayi Ammual, the wife of Subbiah Servai by P.W. 2 and she accepted the plaintiff to be their adopted boy. It was stressed that either (sic.) Karuppayi Ammal has been examined as a witness (sic.) or there is any satisfactory evidence to show that Karuppayi or the other persons who are said to have gone to the house of P.W. 2 had the authority of Subbiah Servai to receive the plaintiff as his adopted son. It was argued that the oral evidence on record that Karuppayi took the plaintiff and made him stand before Subbiah Servai and P.W. 2 entrusted the plaintiff as the boy of Subbiah Servai is not at all sufficient to prove the ingredients of Section 11(vi) and the same is far from satisfactory. It is submitted, it is true that the plaintiff had performed the funeral rites of Subbiah Servai which will not prove valid adoption and the ingredients of Section 11(vi) of the Act have to be proved independently, de hors the performance of funeral rites as ordained under law, which is lacking. The attention of this Court is also invited to the fact that the plaintiff in his cross-examination had admitted that from the date of death of Subbiah Servai and till date he is living only in the house of his natural parents and in none of the documents he had given the name of his adopted father Subbiah Servai as his father. Above all, even while giving evidence in the Court, he has given the name of his father only as Sowmiya Murthy and not as Subbiah Servai and all the above facts show that there is no valid adoption. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that though P. Ws. 1 and 2 have not spoken in so many words that there was proper giving and taking as stipulated in Section 11(vi), the over all effect of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that the ingredients required under Section 11(vi) of the Act have been satisfied. I find great difficulty to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff. 1 and 2 is that the ingredients required under Section 11(vi) of the Act have been satisfied. I find great difficulty to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff. If the evidence on record is analysed carefully in the light of the decisions cited above, it is clear to me that the ingredients required under Section 11(vi) have not been proved and the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff is far from satisfactory in proving the above ingredients. Therefore, I am convinced that the learned first Appellate Judge has committed a grave error in holding that the performance of funeral rites of Subbiah Servai by the plaintiff would establish a valid and legal adoption and the said finding is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai is reversed and that of the Trial Court is restored. However, there will be no order as to costs.