A. Nilamani singh, Sr. Advocate, A. Bimol Singh, for Appellants, T.Nandakumar Singh, Sr. Advocate, Th. Modhu Singh and T. Gogonchandra Singh, for Respondents Judgement N. S. SINGH, J. :- These 2 (two) appeals viz, First Appeal No.1 of 1989 and First Appeal No.2 of 1989 involve common questions of facts and law and, as such, we took up these cases and heard jointly and the same are disposed of with the following common judgment. 2. The common judgment and decree dated 9-8-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.11 of Manipur at Imphal in Original Suit No.12/75/1/75/7/76/17/76/65/77/72/81/18/84 dismissing the suit for partion of immovable properties instituted by the appellants (plaintiffs) mentioned above and decreeing the original Suit No.14/75/58/76/73/81 thus declaring the exclusive right and title of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in First Appeal No.2 of 1989 and respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No.1 of 1989 to immovable properties and also granting perpetual injunction as against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos.2 and 1 in First Appeal No,2 of 1989) and directing their evicting from such properties is the subject matter under challenge in these 2 First Appeals. 3. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows : In First Appeal No,2 of 1989 the principal respondent No.1 viz, Shri Kh. Shachikumar Singh as plaintiff intituted a suit being original suit No. 14/75/58/76/73/87/17/84 hereinafter referred to as first suit against the present appellants as defendant Nos.2,3,4,6,8,9,7,10 and 18 other remaining respondents (respondent No.2 Shri Kh. Mani Singh as defendant No.1) before the original/ Trial Court for the following reliefs. (i) That a declaration that the plaintiff is the adopted son of late Goura Singh and that he is entitled to inheritance and succession to the properties left by Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi, both of them died intestate. (ii) That a declaration that the inkhols under patta No. 49/80(new) I.E. (M), 49/76(new) I.E.(M) with the houses standing thereon described in the Schedule B and C the lous under patta No.9/48(new) I.E. 9/49(new) I.E., 101/80 (new) Th. T.and 101/77(new) Th.T are the properties inherited and succeeded by the plaintiff from his parents by virtue of succession. (ii) That a declaration that the inkhols under patta No. 49/80(new) I.E. (M), 49/76(new) I.E.(M) with the houses standing thereon described in the Schedule B and C the lous under patta No.9/48(new) I.E. 9/49(new) I.E., 101/80 (new) Th. T.and 101/77(new) Th.T are the properties inherited and succeeded by the plaintiff from his parents by virtue of succession. (iii) That a declaration that the order of the A.S and S. O./ Imphal East (M) passed in Mutation Case No.91 of 1974 A.S and SO/IE(M) does not give any right to the defendant No.1 in respect of the land under patta No.49/80(new) I.E(M) and 49/76(new) I.E.(M). (iv) That a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.2 and from interfering with the taking of lowsale by the plaintiffs from his tenants in respect of the lous under patta No.9/48 (new) I.E, 9/78(new) I.E, 101/80(new) Th.T and 101/77(new)Th. T. (v) That the defendants Nos.1 and 2 and other privies be evicted from the dwelling house described in Schedule B and also from the said ingkhols under patta No.49/80(new) I.E.(M) and 49/76(new) I.E.(M). (VI) That the costs of litigation. (vii) That only other relief, if any as the Court deems fit. The present appellants in First Appeal No,1 of 1989 as plaintiffs instituted a suit being original Suit No.12/75/1/75/7/76/17/76/65/77/72/81/18/84 hereinafter referred to as second suit as against the present respondents as defendants for the following reliefs : (a) a decree for partition of the suit properties, in such a way as permissible under the law in force, and for division by metes and bounds and separate enjoyment if and where possible and/or by apportionment of their shares by sale or otherwise of the suit properties or any of these; (b) interim relief by way of temporary injunction, appointment of receiver of any or all of the suit properties when the occesion demands; (c) cost of the suit which may be recovered from the defendants or such of them as would contest the suit; (d) any other or further reliefs as to the court deemed just and fit. The first suit was previously instituted by the plaintiff Shri Kh. The first suit was previously instituted by the plaintiff Shri Kh. Snachikumar Singh and the second suit is the subsequent suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit i.e. the first suit filed by the plaintiff Shri Kh Shachikumar singh in the Court of Munsiff, Imphal East on 30th April, 1975 and the second suit was filed by the plaintiffs initially in the Court of Sub-judge I, Manipur on 25th June, 1975 and lastly, both the suits were transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge No.II, Manipur and the trial of the 2 suits was proceeded with the consolidated hearin as prayed for by the parties concerned in both the suits. The parties in both suits are Hindu belonging to Daya Bhaga School and governed by Hindu Succession 1956 in the matter of succession and inheritance etc. and they are also known as Manipuri Hindu. In the first suit, the case of the plaintiff Shri Shachikumar Singh is that late Gouro Singh alias Madhop married one Khaidem Ningol Ibemhal Devi and both of them died issueless; that Shri Shachikumar Singh was the youngest son of late Amuningthou who died in 1948 and, after the death of his father Amuningthou Singh, and while he was in the custody of his mother R.K. Tamphasana Devi, he was looked after for his welfare by the said Gouro Singh and the said Gouro Singh after obtaining the concent of his wife Ibemhal Devi to take Shachikumar Singh in adoption asked Smt. R.R,Tamphasana Devi (mother of Shachikumar Singh) to give Shachikumar Singh in adoption and the said R.K. Tamphasana Devi agreed rather consented to it and ultimately, the ceremonies relating to adoption and the actual physical giving and taking of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh were performed at the house of Gouro Singh in the month of January, 1957 and a number of sagei elders and close neighbours of Gouro Singh attended the said ceremonies and the mother of Shachikumar Singh had given her consent to the said adoption and after adoption Shachikumar Singh permanently lived with his adoptive parents and his adoptive parents performed Lugun Tringbaand Laiming Louba ceremonies of Shachikumar Singh on the day of adoption and the said adoptive parents also perfomed the marriage ceremony of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh in the year 1969. It is also the case of the Shachikumar Singh that his adoptive father executed and signed a bond of Rs.4,500/- in connection with his roining in the Degree Course in Veterinary Science in the Government College of Gauhati Veterinary College in the year 1960 onwards for a period of 5 years and the said Gouro Singh also gave the names of Shachikumar Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi as members of his family in the related rolls of the pension book of Gouro Singh. Supporting his case, Shachikumar Singh also produced related documents showing the factum of his status as adopted son of his adoptive parents. According to plaintiff Shachikumar, during his absence, the defendant Mani Singh used to stay sometimes at his house for looking after his ailing father Gouro Singh as there was no member to look after his domestic affairs and his father Gouro Singh died on 17-5-1971 leaving behind him and his adoptive mother Ibemhal Devi and his mother Ibemhal Devi also died on 16th August, 1971 and that, during the lifetime of Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi they owned, possessed and enjoyed the suit properties viz, homestead lands and paddy fields described in the schedule of the plaint which is hereinafter referred to as suit properties and after their death, Shachikumar Singh being the only adopted son of his adoptive parents inherited and succeeded to the suit properties and he has been enjoying and possessing the same as owner thereof. It is also urged that the defendent No.1 Mani Singh since he is elder to Shachikumar Singh and because of the service rendered by Mani Singh to Shachikumar Singh, he was dominated by defendant No.1 Mani Singh and he was made to act from time to time on the direction made by the defendant No.1 Mani Singh in the matters relating to possession and enjoyment of the suit properties so left by his parents and he could not openly object to such domination by Shri Mani Singh and ultimately, Mani Singh exercising domination and undue influence on Shachikumar Singh, made him to write and signed on the application for grant of mutation of 2 homestead lands out of the suit properties in his name and the name of Mani Singh on the ground of possession and inheritance although, Shachikumar Singh did not want to transfer or relinquish his right thereof over the suit properties/homestead lands however, mutation in respect of the said homestead lands was granted jointly to and in favour of Shachikumar Singh and the said Mani Singh by an order dated 11th July, 1974 passed by the AS and SO, I.E., Imphal East in Mutation Case No.91 of 1974. It is also the case of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh that the defendant No.1 Mani Singh further filed another petition for mutation in respect of other 2 lands under patta No.101/80(New)Th.T and under patta No.101/77(New)Th.T. in his name in the Court of S.D.C., Thoubal and the same was rejected on the objection raised by the plaintiff Shachikumar on 19.12.74 in Misc. Case No.61/SDC/ Th./1974. There were other litigations between the parties concerned in the Court of S.D.C., Thoubal in the year 1975 also and the action of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 thus, making forcible entry and occupation in the house of Shachikumar Singh had disturbed the peace and harmony of the family members the plaintiff Shachikumar stated in his plaint and for the foregoing circumstances. Shachikumar Singh had been compelled to file the first suit. 4. In the second suit the plaintiffs" Shri Kh. Shachikumar Singh had been compelled to file the first suit. 4. In the second suit the plaintiffs" Shri Kh. Sadhu alias Rabei Singh and 9 others sought for a decree for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds end the separate enjoyment if and where possible and/or by aportionment of the respective shares of the parties by sale or otherwise"of the suit properties coupled with a claim for interim"relief by way of temporary injunction appointment of receiver of the suit properties and for other reliefs by contending inter alia, that late Gouro Singh died on 17th May, 1971 intestate and his estate and properties devolved on, rather inherited by his only widow late Smti. Ibemhal Devi and they had no issue of their own and the said Ibemhal Devi also died on 16-8-1971 and on her death, the suit properties devolved on and were inherited by the plaintiffs namely, the appellants in First Appeal No.1 of 1989 and the defendants namely, the respondents in the said First Appeal as the surviving nearest heirs of Gouro Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi, being the children of predeceased brothers and sisters of late Gouro Singh. 5. The case of the defendant Mani Singh in both the suits is that the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh was never adopted by late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi as their own son but, he (Mani Singh) was adopted validly by Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi as their son from his childhood by performing all due ceremonies according to the Hindu laws and Manipuri custom and since then he has been living with his adopted parents under the same roof and after their death, he inherited the suit properties left by them. The defandant Mani Singh also took the plea that Shachikumar completed more that 15 years at the time of his alleged adoption and, as such, he was not capable of being taken in adoption in 1956 or 1957 and the said Mani Singh almost denied all the statements of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh made in his plaint. The 3rd set of parties i.e. the plaintiffs in second suit (appellants in First Appeal No.1 of 1989) contested the rival claims of both the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh and the said defendant Mani Singh. The 3rd set of parties i.e. the plaintiffs in second suit (appellants in First Appeal No.1 of 1989) contested the rival claims of both the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh and the said defendant Mani Singh. In both the suits the plea of the said plaintiffs/appellants is that late Gouro Singh died on 17-5-1971 intestate and his estate and properties devolved on and, rather inherited by his only widow Ibemhal Devi who also died on 16th Aguust, 1971 intestate and both the late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi had no issue of their own and, as such, the suit properties devolved on and were inherited by the parties in the suit as the surviving heirs of Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi being the children of predeceased brothers and sisters of them. According to the said plaintiffs, Shachikumar Singh and Mani Singh were never adopted either by late Gouro Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi validly or in any legal and/or customary manner during their lifetime. The said plaintiffs accordingly sought for a decree for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds as mentioned above. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties concerned, the following issues had been framed in both the cases separately for just determination of the real points in controversies between the parties. ISSUES ( IN FIRST SUIT) (1) Had not the plaintiff completed the age of 15 years at the time of his alleged adoption January, 1957 ? (2) Was the plaintiff validly adopted by late Khangembam Gouro Singh as his son in January 1957 ? (3) Did late Khangembam Gouro Singh validly adopt the defendant No.1 as his son before the said adoption of the plaintiff. If so, was the adoption of the plaintiff invalid being made after adoption of the defendant No.1 ? (4) If neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 is the adopted son, whether the plaintiff and all the defendants are heirs of late Kh. Gouro Singh and his widow ? (5) Whether the petition of the plaintiff praying for mutation of the pattas No.49/76 (new) I. E.(M) and 49/80(new) I. E. in the names of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was vitiated as caused by undue influence of the defendant No.1 ? (6) Are the defendants 1 and 2 trespassers in the ingkhols of patta No.49/76 (new) I. E. (M) and 49/80 (New) I.E. (M) ? (6) Are the defendants 1 and 2 trespassers in the ingkhols of patta No.49/76 (new) I. E. (M) and 49/80 (New) I.E. (M) ? (7) Whether the building at plaint schedule C was constructed with the materials of the granary left by Kh. Gouro Singh ? (8) Whether the plaintiff is out of possession of the agricultural land under pattas No.9/48(new) I. E., 9/78(new) I. E., 101/80(new) Th. T, 1001/17(new) Th. T. ? If so, is the suit hit by Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act for want of relief for possession ? (9) Whether the suit is under valued and, if correctly valued, is it beyond the jurisdiction of this Court ? (10) Reliefs ? ISSUES (IN SECOND SUIT) (1) Whether the defendant No.2 is the adopted son of late Khangembam Gouro Singh and his wife Smt. Ibemhal Devi ? (2) Whether the defendant No.6 is the adopted son of late Khangembam Gouro Singh and his wife Smt. Ibemhal Devi ? (3) Whether the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule B were left by late Khangembam Gouro Singh or are they personal properties of the defendant No.2 ? (4) Who are the heirs of late Smt. Ibemhal Devi and what are their shares ? (5) Whether the suit over-valued ? (6) Is the Court fees paid incorrect ? (7) Is the suit liable to be stayed under Section 10 Cr.P. C. pending the suit of the defendant No.2 instituted before Munsiff/ Imphal East? (8) Is the suit barred by waiver and acquiescence ? (9) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs as claimed ? 7. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge No.111, Manipur Imphal decreed the first suit thus, declaring the exclusive right and title of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh to suit properties and also granting perpetual injunction against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 viz, Mani Singh and K. S. Singh and directing their eviction from suit properties and the learned Trial Court dismissed the second suit filed by the plaintiffs Shri Kh. Sadhu and 9 others viz. the appellants in First Appeal No.1 of 1989 by a common judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.11, Manipur at Imphal in both the suits the present appellants preferred these 2 (two) appeals. 8. Sadhu and 9 others viz. the appellants in First Appeal No.1 of 1989 by a common judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.11, Manipur at Imphal in both the suits the present appellants preferred these 2 (two) appeals. 8. Supporting the case of the appellants in both the appeals, Mr A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel contended that the findings of the learned Trial Court are quite perverse, arbitrary, capricious, irrational and also quite unfounded on the evidence on record and particularly, the findings of the learned Trial Court on Issue No.1 regarding the adoption of Kh. Sachikumar Singh by the late Kh. Gouro Singh and his wife Smti. Ibemhal Devi as their son is wrong and unfounded on evidence and, apart from it, the findings that the said Shachikumar Singh did not attain the age of 15 years in January, 1957 as asserted by him is completely misconceived and grossly erroneous and , as such, the learned Trial Court ought to have correctly held that the said Sachikumar Singh was far above the age of 15 years on the day of the alleged adoption and when there is neither pleadings nor proof about the existence of the alleged Manipuri Custom permitting the adoption of a boy above the age of 15 years, the learned Trial Court is quite incompetent and unjustified to take recourse to the socalled Manipuri Customs complied by some unauthorised body of persons which the Honble High Court regarded to be of dubious authority and also doubtful of legal value. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court ought to have decided the suit in favour of the appellants that the suit properties are inherited by the appellants and the respondents as legal heirs and successors in interest of the deceased couple Kh. Gouro Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh learned senior counsel went on to contend that the learned Trial Court has failed to frame material issues in the suits thereby, vitiating the trial and decision in the suit and also causing a miscarriage of justice and moreover, the learned Trial Court had misappreciated rather, misconceived the evidence both oral and documentary on record while deciding the suit. During the course of the argument, Mr. During the course of the argument, Mr. A Nilamani Singh supporting the case of the appellants had relied upon all the grounds of objection taken in the memo of appeals and submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in law while decreeing the suit filed by the said Kh. Shachikumar Singh. There is/was no pleading to the effect that in Manipuri custom one can be adopted after attaining 15 years of age and no such pleading was ever taken by the said Shachikumar Singh in his plaint and, apart from it, there is no material on record to establish the factum of ceremony of adoption, ceremony of giving and taking over of the said Shachikumar Singh and, as such, it is not a valid adoption. Supporting this contention Mr. A Nilamani Singh relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Saling Ram, v. Munshi Ram reported in AIR 1961 SC 1374 and the decision of this Court rendered in W. Priyokumar Singh v. Wangkheimayum Ongbi Rani Devi reported in AIR 1977 Gauhati 65. Mr. T. Gogonchandra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in First Appeal No.1 and respondent No.2 in First Appeal No,2 of 1989 namely, Shri Kh. Mani Singh, endorsed and supported the submissions and arguments so far advanced by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned common judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. 9. At the hearing Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh learned senior counsel submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court inasmuch as the lcarned Trial Court rightly and correctly appreciated the evidence on record and there are enough evidence on record for establishing and proving the factum of adoption of the said Shachikumar Singh by the couple late Kh. Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi. 10. Now this Court is to see and examine as to whether the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from illegality or irregularity or impropriety and whether the learned Trial Court had appreciated the evidence on record rightly or wrongly and, whether the appellants had made out a case to justify the interference with the impugned judgment and decrees or not. 10. Now this Court is to see and examine as to whether the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from illegality or irregularity or impropriety and whether the learned Trial Court had appreciated the evidence on record rightly or wrongly and, whether the appellants had made out a case to justify the interference with the impugned judgment and decrees or not. Over and above this, we are of the view that the main points for determination in the instant appeals are as follows :- (1) Whether the said Shachikumar Singh is the adopted son of the late couple Kh. Gouro Singh and Smti. Ibemhal Devi and if so whether the said Shachikumar Singh is entitled to the reliefs so far claimed in his plaint; (2) If neither Shachikumar Singh nor Kh. Mani Singh is the adopted son of late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi, whether said Shachikumar Singh and all the defendants (the parties concerned) are heirs of late Kh. Gouro Singh and his widow Ibemhal Devi and whether a decree for partition of suit properties left behind by the said late Gouro Singh by metes and bounds for separate enjoyment amongst the parties is called for or not; 11. The main defendant No.1 Shri Kh. Mani Singh in the first suit (defendant No.16 in the second suit) whose case is that he is the adopted son of late Gouro Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi and he inherited the suit properties as the surviving son of late Gouro Singh to the exclusion of all the parties including the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh in the first suit. It is also the case of the said defendant Mani Singh that the plaintiff Shri Shachikumar Singh in the first suit is not the adopted son of late Gouro Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi but the said defendant Mani Singh could not prove his case inasmuch as he did not examine himself as witness but he produced one witness namely Shri Kh. Birdhon Singh as D. W. 1 in support of his case but the said witness Birdhon Singh in his evidence before the learned Trial Court does not support the claim of defendant Kh. Birdhon Singh as D. W. 1 in support of his case but the said witness Birdhon Singh in his evidence before the learned Trial Court does not support the claim of defendant Kh. Mani Singh with regard to his adoption and the said witness testified that neither Shachikumar Singh nor defendant Mani Singh is the adopted son of late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi and the latter did not adopt any of them as their sons during their lifetime and, apart from it, Mr. T. Gogonchandra Singh, learned counsel for the defendant Mani Singh openly submitted and admitted at the bar that the defendant Mani Singh has withdrawn his claim about his own adoption and the said defendant Mani Singh supports the claim of other defendants in the first suit and further took the plea that the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is not the adopted son of late Gouro Singh and his wife Ibemhal Devi; and the suit properties left by late Gouro Singh and his wife devolved on the parties of the suit by succession. Hence, from the available evidence and materials on record, we are of the view that the said Mani Singh is not the adopted son of the said late couple and we are in agreement with the findings of the learned Trial Court on this issue/matter. 12. The plaintiff Shachikumar Singh gave evidence to the effect that in January, 1957 the ceremony of giving and taking of his adoption was performed at the house of late Gouro Singh in presence of Sagei elders (clan elders) and on the said day the ceremony of Lugun Thangba (sacred thread) and Sagei Chak Khangba (afternoon meal to the clan members) were also performed in which the relatives namely Ibobi Singh, Nilachandar Singh, Kh. Ibochouba Singh, Th. Angou Singh, R. K. Thambalsana Singh, Kh. Ibochouba Singh, M.M. Sharma, his natural mother Tamphasana Devi, Ibemhal Devi (wife of Gouro Singh) and Gouro Singh himself were present and about 50 persons attended at the function. His statement also supported by the statement of his natural mother R. K. Tamphasana Devi, P.W. 11 who stated that late Gouro Singh asked her to give Sachikumar Singh for adopting him as his son and she also agreed to the said proposal and late Ibemhal Devi, wife of late Gouro Singh had no objection to the said adoption. His statement also supported by the statement of his natural mother R. K. Tamphasana Devi, P.W. 11 who stated that late Gouro Singh asked her to give Sachikumar Singh for adopting him as his son and she also agreed to the said proposal and late Ibemhal Devi, wife of late Gouro Singh had no objection to the said adoption. She also stated that while Shachikumar Singh attained the age of 13 years a formal adoption ceremony such as Sagei Chak Khangba and Lugun Thangba and Laiming Louba were performed at the house of Gouro Singh and Sagei members were also participated. The other witnesses namely, P, Ws 1,5 and 11 also gave evidences supporting the case of the plaintiff particularly, they adduced evidences pertaining to the adoption of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh as son of the late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi in presence of Sagei elders and Leikai elders and they further submitted that there was Chak Khangba ceremony and that Lugun Thangba ceremony was also performed by late Gouro Singh for the plaintiff on that day. The plaintiff Shachikumar Singh produced as many as 12 witnesses including himself. He also produced several documents and exhibited which are as follows :- (1) Ext. A-1 matriculation Certificates of Shachikumar Singh for passing Matriculation Examination,1958 of University of Gauhati, dt. 1-8-56(original); (2) Ext. A-2, Application form for his admission to U. P. University; (3) Ext. A-3 to Ext. A-8 are the certified copies of Jamabandi pattas in respect of the suit lands and paddy fields; (4) Ext. A-9 : the order dt 19-12-74 of S. D. C., Thoubal in Misc. Case No.61/SDC/Th/1974 rejecting the application by Mani Singh for mutation of the suit land; (5) Ext. A-10 is the draft bond executed by late Gouro on 30th July 1960 undertaking as a Guarantee for Sachikumar Singh; (6) Ext. A-11 is the affidavit dt.6-1-71 by late Gouro Singh as to the declaration relating to the date of birth of Sachikumar Singh and relationship of Sachikumar Singh; (7) Ext. A-12 is the pension book (original) of late Gouro; (8) Ext. A-13 is an attested copy of the correspondence dt. 1st April, 1961 by Y. Saratchandra Singh, Settlement Officer to the Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland, Shillong regarding the pension of late Gouro Singh informing that Ibemhal Devi is the wife and Sachikumar Singh is the only son of late Gouro Singh; (9) Ext. A-13 is an attested copy of the correspondence dt. 1st April, 1961 by Y. Saratchandra Singh, Settlement Officer to the Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland, Shillong regarding the pension of late Gouro Singh informing that Ibemhal Devi is the wife and Sachikumar Singh is the only son of late Gouro Singh; (9) Ext. A-14 is the certificate issued by Director General, N.C.C. in respect of Sachikumar Singh for his passing (c) Examination in 1965; (10) Ext. A-15 is the certified copy of the order dt. 11-7-74 of Asstt. Survey and settlement Officer/I.E regarding the mutation of land under patta No.49/80, 76 IWT in Mutation Case No.91 of 1074 AS and SD IE(M) with both Mani Singh and Sachikumar Singh as the 1st party; (11) Ext. A-16 is the letter dt.19th January 1974 addressed to Sachikumar Singh by the settllement Officer for the returning of the survey implements. In order to prove his case the defendant Kh. Mani Singh produced one witness namely Sri Kh. Birdhon Singh as D. W. 1/1 and also produced and exhibited the following documents :- (1) Ext- C-1 the Electoral Roll 73 of Yaiskul Seembley Constituency where the name of Sachikumar Singh appears at serial No.7207 (2) Ext. C-2 it is the unregistered and unstamped partition deed dt. 12-5-74 between Sachikumar Singh and Mani Singh and also Sadhu, Ningthoural in presence of the witnesses Nilachandra, Devendra and Kh. Hera Singh for the partition of the suit properties; (3) Ext- C-3 is the order dt. 11-7-74 of AS and SO IE in Mutation Case No.91/74/AS and SO /IE(M) for mutation of the land under patta No.49/80 and 49/76; (4) Ext- C-4 is the certified copy of the statement of the pattadars (Sachikumar Singh and Mani Singh) in partition case No. 39 ASSO/IE - 1974 Likewise, Shri Hera Singh and his party i.e. the appellants herein produced 2 witnesses and they also produced and exhibited the following documents in support of their cases :- (1) Ext. B-1 is the certified true copy of the application form for mutation alleged to have been filed by Sachikumar Singh and Mani Singh for the mutation under patta No, 49/80 , 76. (2) Ext. B-2 is the certified copy of the application for partition in respect of the said ingkhole. 13. The case of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is fully supported by the documents so far produced and exhibited inasmuch as Ext. (2) Ext. B-2 is the certified copy of the application for partition in respect of the said ingkhole. 13. The case of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is fully supported by the documents so far produced and exhibited inasmuch as Ext. A-10 is a draft bond exhibited by late Gouro Singh in connection with an undertaking as father /guardian of Shachikumar Singh for his taking stipend during the course of studies and to repay the said amount with interest if the said Shachikumar Singh break any of the condition stated therein. Ext. A-11 is on affidavit shown by late Gouro Singh before the Magistrate 1st Class, Imphal Shri Upendra Singh testifying that Shri Shachikumar Singh is his son and his date of birth falls on 1st March,1944 and execution of this affidavit and contents thereof are fully endorsed and proved by Shri C. Upendra Singh, P. W. 9 who happens to be the said Magistrate 1st Class, Imphal and this affidavit/document has been in existence much prior to the dispute as to the adoption of Shachikumar Singh arose between the Parties. Ext- A/2 is also another document where late Gouro Singh made certain declarations as the father of Shachikumar Singh in the Admission Form which was submitted on 11th June, 1969 to U. P. Agricultural University and another document Ext. A-16 also establish the fact that: late Gouro Singh is the father of the plaintiff and likewise Ext-A/14 is the certificate issued by the Director General, N.C.C. in respect of his passing examination in 1965 wherein he is described as son of late Gouro Singh. At this stage, it is note worthy to mention that Ext-C/2 is the unregistered partition deed between Shachikumar Singh and the defendant Mani Singh which according to us, the same clouded the case of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh but we hold that the said document marked as Ext. C/2 is inadmissible in the eye of law and this document cannot take away the status of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh as the adopted Son of late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi. It is also our view that Ext. C-1 which is Electoral Roll containing the name and age of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is of little value as against the overwhe1ming documents so far produced by the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh in support of his case including Matriculation Certificate, Ext. It is also our view that Ext. C-1 which is Electoral Roll containing the name and age of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is of little value as against the overwhe1ming documents so far produced by the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh in support of his case including Matriculation Certificate, Ext. A-1 which is a valuable document, We are also of the view that the learned Trial Court had dealt with the related issue exhaustively and came to the conclusion that the adoption of the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is a valid one and such related finding finds its place at paragraphs 33, 34,35 and 36 of the impugned judgment. We have also perused the evidence on record and, from the evidence on record, it is revealed that the performance of the ceremonies of adoption and ceremony of giving and taking over of Shachikumar Singh and also "Chak Khangba" in open view and publicity of it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court also examined the case as to whether the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh was adopted as per related provisions of Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act or according to the customs. Rejecting the submission of Mr. A. Nilamani Singh learned senior counsel to the effect that the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh did not plead the custom in his plaints the learned Trial Court observed this" it will be seen that the plaintiff was adopted neither according to Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act nor according to the custom. If such is the assertion, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff was adopted under the Act or under the Custom ". Highlighting this fact, the learned Trial Court also opined that plaintiff Shachikumar Singh also has proved his own adoption according to Manipuri Custom and usage, even if, he happened to complete 15 years or to cross 15 years at the time of adoption in January, 1957 by rendering the following observation which find its place at paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the judgment which is important and material and, accordingly, it is quoted below :- " 37. It is further argued by the counsel for the plaintiff Sachikumar Singh that even if the finding on his age is found against him, under the custom as prevalent in Manipur Hindus, there is no limit of the age of the person to be taken in adoption except the bar that such person after Upanayana (Lugun Thangba) is not to be adopted. In our Case, it is seen in the evidence that both the ceremonies of adoption and Lugun Thangba of the plaintiff took place on the same day and there was one feast. In the Booklet Manipur Customs in Article 27, Chapter V, Part 1, it is stated as follows :- "27. The following ceremonies are necessary for adoption Sagei Chak Khangba with Homa or without it or Datta Homa, along with the above ceremony of giving and taking in adoption of the boy is necessary." 38. It is seen that the ceremonies of actual giving and taking and Chak Khangba were performed. This has been found proved. Now, it remains to examine whether the said adoption was done after Lugun Thangba ceremony. In fact, none of the withnesses says as to the point of time which ceremony was first or later performed. The counsel for the defendants directed the line of their cross-examination to suggest that the ceremony of Lugun Thangba is also accompanied with or followed by a feast. In our case in hand, there is only one feast. It is also seen that according to the Manipuri Custom, Chand Khangbais is also one essential item of the ceremony of adoption. None of the defence counsel has suggested when the ceremony of Lugun Thangba completed. If the overall evidence of P. Ws is taken, it appears that the ceremony of giving and taking was first done on the day when both ceremonies of adoption and Lugun Thangba took place. In their evidence, the P. Ws narrated the ceremony of the giving and taking as the first even of the day and it is followed by Lugun Thangba and feast. In such circumstances, it may be presumed that the adoption did take place before Lugun Thangba of the plaintiff though both ceremonies were held on the same day. In their evidence, the P. Ws narrated the ceremony of the giving and taking as the first even of the day and it is followed by Lugun Thangba and feast. In such circumstances, it may be presumed that the adoption did take place before Lugun Thangba of the plaintiff though both ceremonies were held on the same day. Therefore, it is to be taken that the plaintiff also has proved his own adoption according to Manipur custom and usage even if he happened to complete 15 years or to cross 15 years at the time of the adoption in January,1957. 39. It is argued by the counsel Shri A. Nilamani Singh that the plea of custom or usage regarding the adoption cannot be taken as the said plea is not taken in the pleading. In support of his contention, the Ld. counsel cited AIR 1961 SC 1374 para 4 H. N. (C). I have examined this case and it is found out that in spite of general rule that the plaintiff should actually plead custom in the plaint there is no bar in the assertion of such plea in the circumstances of the case. In fact, the cited case AIR 1961SC 1374 discussed the points of claim on custom though no specific plea was taken in the plaint; and inspite of such general rule, the S. C. considered such points, and gave its decision in the case on the plea/assertion of custom. In our case it will be seen that in the written statement of the defendants it is claimed that the plaintiff was adopted neither according to Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or according to the customs. If such is the assertion it is to be seen whether the plaintiff was adopted under the Act or under the custom. So, the objection of the Ld. counsel A. Nilamani Singh has no substance." Though Mr. If such is the assertion it is to be seen whether the plaintiff was adopted under the Act or under the custom. So, the objection of the Ld. counsel A. Nilamani Singh has no substance." Though Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel argued that the learned Trial Court ought to have held that Shri Shachikumar Singh was far above the age of 15 years on the day of alleged adoption and when there is neither pleadings nor proof about the existence of the alleged Manipuri Custom permitting the adoption of a boy above the age 15 years and that the learned Trial Court is quite incompetent and unjustified to take recourse to the so called Manipurt Custom compiled by some unauthorised body or persons; this submission holds little water for the reasons that there is enough evidence on record for establishing the fact that the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh is the adopted son of late Gouro Singh and Ibemhal Devi according to law as well as according to Manipurt Custom as discussed above as there is overwhelming evidence on record regarding the performance of ceremony of adoption and giving and taking over in the instant case. It is well settled that the object of the corporal giving and receiving in adoption is to secure due publicity for which a formal ceremony was called for as the same is essential which was also done in the instant case. 14. This Court need not go more into depth as we have decided the main issues in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment. Over and above this, the plaintiffs Shri Sadhu Singh, Shri Hera Singh and others in second suit (appellants in First Appeal No.1 of 1989) utterly failed to prove their cases and, as such, the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the second suit. 15. For the reasons. observations and discussions made above, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court decided the related issues framed on the basis of the available materials on record and in accordance with law and, as such, there is no infirmity or illegality or impropriety in the impugned common judgment and decrees and hence, the appellants in both the appeals could not make out case to justify the interference with the common impugned judgment and decrees. 16. 16. In view of the above position, the plaintiff Shachikumar Singh has right, title and interest over the suit properties as he inherited the same from his adoptive parents and he is the absolute owner of the suit properties. In the result, these 2(two) appeals are devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same are dismissed thus, affirming the impugned common judgment and decrees passed by the learned additional District Judge No.11. Manipur at Imphal in Original suit No.12/75/1/75/7/76/17/76/65/77/72/81/18/84 and in original suit No.14/75/58/76/73/81 No order as to costs. Appeals Dismissed