JUDGMENT The appellant, Boppana Veera Prabhavathi, in AS.Nos.2847 and 2848 of 1999 and Tr.A.S. No. 3705 of 2000, filed suits O.S. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. O.S. No. 33 of 1989 was filed for declaration of title in respect of the schedule property covered by Ex.A-3, which is C schedule property of the plaint in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 and O.S. No. 34 of 1989 was filed for partition and separate possession of 3/4th share in plaint A, Band C schedule properties. The first defendant, Smt. M. Sattemma, in both the suits filed O.S. No. 43 of 1994 against the defendant/appellant herein for permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with her possession to the plaint schedule property. The appellant in AS.No.967 of 1997 is the second defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1989. Both the suits O.S. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1989 filed by the appellant herein were dismissed and the suit O.S. No. 43 of 1994 filed by the respondents, first defendant for permanent injunction in respect of the said properties was decreed by a common judgment and decree dated 15-4-1997 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suits in O.S. Nos. 33 and 34 of 1989 the plaintiff filed A.S.Nos.2847 and 2848 of 1999 and the second defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 tiled AS. NO.967 of 1997, Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 43 of 1994, the defendant, who is the plaintiff in the other two suits, filed Tr.A.S.No.3705 of 2000. 3. As the trial Court disposed the three suits by common judgment and decree and as similar questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these four appeals are also disposed by common judgment. 4. The suit O.S. No. 34 of 1989 filed by B. V. Prabhavathi for partition of her 3/4th share in plaint A, Band C schedule properties is the main suit in the aforesaid three appeals as the plaintiff therein claims that she is the adopted daughter of the first defendant in the said two suits and plaintiff in O.S. No. 43 of 1994. The suit O.S. No. 33 of 1989 filed basing on an unregistered document EX.A-3 alleging that the plaint C schedule property in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 was gifted to the plaintiff towards pasupu Kumkuma at the time of her marriage as she being the adopted daughter. Therefore, the main question that arises for consideration. is as to whether B.V. Prabhavathi is the adopted daughter of the first defendant - M. Sattemma and her late husband. The other question that arises for consideration is as to whether the second defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 was able to prove his independent title in respect of Item IV of plaint A schedule property. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 6. The said B.V. Prabhavathi is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff; Smt. M. Sattemma is hereinafter referred to as the first defendant and Gajula Ratnaji is hereinafter referred to as the second defendant. 7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant and her late husband, Maddukuri Papa Rao, are her adoptive parents and Maddukuri Suryarao and his wife Seethamma, are her natural parents. It is stated that her natural father and adoptive father are the sons of the brothers. The adoptive father and the first defendant brought up the plaintiff with great love and affection since her birth and later they requested the natural parents to give the plaintiff in adoption in October 1977, as they had no children and as they did not give birth to any child. The natural parents of the plaintiff agreed to give the plaintiff in adoption, then the natural and adoptive parents of the plaintiff fixed the date of adoption on 30-7-1977 at 7-18 a.m. and the adoptive parents have took the plaintiff in adoption and the natural parents gave her in adoption on 30-7-1977 in accordance with their caste customs and ceremonies in the presence of their relatives, village elders and others. Since then the plaintiff had been treated as the adopted daughter of Paparao and the first defendant. Thus, it is stated that the plaintiff and her adoptive father are coparceners. 8. Since then the plaintiff had been treated as the adopted daughter of Paparao and the first defendant. Thus, it is stated that the plaintiff and her adoptive father are coparceners. 8. It is further stated that the adoptive parents performed the marriage of the plaintiff with the sisters son of late Paparao on 6-6-1985 and they gave C schedule property in an extent of Ac.2-96 cents in R.S.No.315 of Dommeru village to the plaintiff towards Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of marriage and delivered the same to her and later they reduced the same into writing as a memorandum of past transaction on a stamped paper and both of them signed on it on 7-6-1985 in the presence of Boppana Subbarao, A.V.V. Satyanarayana, Maddukuri Suryarao (natural father), Kakarla Bulliraju, Boddu Hanumantha Rao and others. The plaintiff acquired rights in respect of C schedule property. However, if for any reason, if the plaintiff fails to prove that the said land was given towards her Pasupu Kumkuma, even then the plaintiff has share in the same and the said property is liable to partition. The adoptive father, Paparao, died intestate and undivided on 30-1-1989 leaving behind him, his co-parcenary interest in the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff and the first defendant are his only legal heirs. The natural brother of the plaintiff namely M. Venkateswararao performed the obsequies of late Paparao at the expenses of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to half share in the plaint schedule properties as a coparcener alike her adoptive father. The plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to equal shares in the undivided half share of late Paparao as class I heirs. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to three shares out of four shares and the first defendant is entitled to the remaining one share in the plaint schedule properties. The adoptive father of the plaintiff raised tobacco crop in the items 1, 5 and 6 of plaint A schedule properties and sugar cane crop in the items 2 and 4 of the plaint A schedule properties and after the death of the adoptive father the natural brother of the plaintiff had been looking after the crops in the schedule properties. After the death of the adoptive father the relatives of the first defendant through her sister polluted the mind of the first defendant and instigated her to act against the interests of the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff requested the first defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for allotment and for separate possession of her share but the first defendant was not inclined for partition and tried to take away the crops in the schedule properties to cause loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for partition of plaint A schedule properties consisting of 7 items, plaint B schedule properties consisting of movable properties and plaint C schedule property covered by Ex.A-3, which is the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 33 of 1989. 9. The first defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint stating that all the said averments are absolutely incorrect and false. It is stated that they never brought up the plaintiff or contemplated to adopt the plaintiff and no such adoption took place on 30-10-1977. The plaintiff is not the adopted daughter of the first defendant and her deceased husband and the plaintiff and her deceased husband are not coparceners, Therefore, she is not entitled to any right, title and interest in respect of the plaint schedule properties. It is stated that all the properties are self-acquired properties of her deceased husband Paparao and they had not adopted the plaintiff and the first defendant alone is entitled to inherit all tile properties of her deceased husband. The property covered by Ex.A-3 in an extent of AC.2-96 cents in R.S. No. 315 of Dommeru village was not at all given to the plaintiff towards Pasupu Kumkuma and the said EX.A-3 is a forged document, which has been created and attested by the natural father of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any right over the plaint C. schedule property. It is stated that late Paparao died intestate on 30-1-1989 and the first defendant alone is the legal heir of the entire estate of late Paparao. The obsequies of her late husband Paparao were not at all performed by the natural brother of the plaintiff, in fact, one M. Hanumantharao, son of Veeranna performed the obsequies and the said Veeranna is the elder brother of late Paparao. The obsequies of her late husband Paparao were not at all performed by the natural brother of the plaintiff, in fact, one M. Hanumantharao, son of Veeranna performed the obsequies and the said Veeranna is the elder brother of late Paparao. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of any of the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff never got any share in the crops in respect of the plaint C schedule property. The plaintiff never had right, title or interest and she never cultivated or contributed to any share. The first defendant alone discharged the debts incurred by late Paparao and the first defendant alone is liable for any liabilities in respect of the said properties. 10. The second defendant also filed a written statement denying the allegation that the plaint schedule properties were the co-parcenery properties and ancestral properties of late Paparao and the plaintiff. He further denied the allegation that the adoptive father of the plaintiff died intestate leaving behind him co-parcenery interest. It is stated that the plaintiff and the first defendant are not entitled to any share in item 4 of the, plaint A schedule property and they were never in joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties. It is stated that the, natural brother of the plaintiff never looked after the crops in item 4 of plaint A schedule. Therefore, the plaintiff and the first defendant are not entitled to partition and separate possession of any share in item 4 of the plaint A Schedule property. 11. The trial Court framed several separate issues in each suit based on the pleadings and examined the plaintiff as P.W.1, the natural father of the plaintiff as P.W.2, a relative of the plaintiff as P.W.3 to prove the adoption, another relative as P.W.4 to prove that the marriage was performed by the adoptive father and that the adoptive father executed EX.A-3 and another relative was examined as P. W .5. On behalf of the plaintiff EX.A-1 wedding card of the marriage, EX.A-2 cover of the wedding card, EX.A-3 unregistered settlement deed executed by the adoptive father, Exs.A-4 to A-15 inland letters written by adoptive father, EX.A 16 is the voters list, Exs.A-17 to A-27 photos with their negatives taken at the time of marriage, EX.A-28 is also the wedding card with invitation, EX.A-29 is the registration extract of the security deed executed by Subba Rao and others in favour of M. Paparao in respect of item 4 of the plaint A schedule property claimed by the second defendant, have been marked. 12. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1; the secretary of PACS Kapavaram was examined as D.W.2 to prove that the late Paparao used to raise crop loans every year; the Supervisor of the District Cooperative Central Bank was examined as D.W.3, one M. Hanumantha Rao, relative of the plaintiff was examined as D. W.4 to prove that the marriage of the plaintiff was performed by her natural father and the adoptive father only performed Kanyadanam; one Gopalaswamy another relative was examined as D.W.5 to disprove the alleged adoption and the second defendant was examined as D.W.6, who claimed Item 4 of plaint A schedule property. Exs.B-1 to B-23 and Exs.X-1 to X-6 were marked to prove that all the plaint schedule properties are the exclusive properties of the late husband of the first defendant and after his demise all the said properties devolved on the first defendant. 13. The trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence elaborately held that adoption was not proved and also that the admitted signatures of late Paparao differed with signatures in EX.A-3 and in the absence of any corroborative evidence showing that the said document was acted upon subsequent to its execution, no weight can be attached to the said document. The recitals in EX.A-3 are not of any help to the plaintiff to prove her adoption as a factum. Though the letters Exs.A-4 to A-15 were written from time to time by late Paparao to his brother-in-law i.e., sisters husband and father-in-law of plaintiff, who is no stranger, as such, there is no wonder in writing such things to send the plaintiff and her husband to his house and from the said letters it cannot be said that the factum of adoption was proved. With regard to EX.A-16 it was held that the name of the plaintiff was entered in the voters list subsequent to her marriage, which was prepared in January 1986, whereas the marriage took place on 6-6-1985 six months prior to the date of voters list and when the husband of the plaintiff is in Karnataka, she could have been shown as voter in that State. Merely because the name of the plaintiff was entered in the voters list showing her as the daughter of Paparao, the factum of adoption cannot be believed as true. Late Paparao used to raise crop loans year after year but nowhere it is declared in the genealogy that the plaintiff is his adopted daughter and accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled to partition in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 and the plaintiff is also not entitled for declaration of title in respect of the plaint C schedule property. However, as the alleged adoption took place prior to the Andhra Pradesh amendment to Hindu Succession Act and as conceded by the learned counsel if the adoption is proved the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share alone; and as the adoption is not proved the plaintiff is not entitled to partition. It was further held that EX.A-29 is a genuine document and as per the recitals of EX.A-29 the property i.e., item 4 of the plaint A schedule property was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the late Paparao and therefore, the second defendant is not entitled to claim the said property. Therefore, both the suits filed by the plaintiff were dismissed and the suit O.S. No. 43 of 1989 filed by the first defendant was decreed. 14. The questions that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the alleged adoption of the plaintiff dated 30-10-1977 was proved? 2. Whether EX.A-3 unregistered settlement deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 33 of 1989 corresponding to plaint C schedule property in partition suit O.S. No. 34 of 1989 is true, valid and binding on the first defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of her title in respect of plaint C schedule property? 3. Whether the claim of the second defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 in respect of item 4 of the plaint A schedule property was genuine and whether he was able to prove his right, title and interest? 15. 3. Whether the claim of the second defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 in respect of item 4 of the plaint A schedule property was genuine and whether he was able to prove his right, title and interest? 15. The plaintiff, examined as P.W.1, stated that late Paparao adopted her when she was 12 years old and she was born in 1965. The adoption took place on 30-10-1977 at the house of her adoptive parents at about 7.18 a.m. and at the time of adoption her natural and adoptive parents and M. Veeranna, M. Narayanarao, M. Pardhasaradhi and his 3 sisters, B. Subbamma, B. Aravalamma and his brother-in-law B. Dorayya, M. Balaramayya, M. Chantamma, A. Satyanarayana, A. Bullabai, A. Chinnamma, V. Satyanarayana, M. Adipattabhi Ramarao, M. Baskara Rao, U. Brahmanna, U. Venkayamma, U. Satyanarayana and others were present. One Viyyanna of Malakapalli officiated the adoption ceremony as purohit. 16. It is stated that the wedding card had been printed at the time of her marriage, EX.A-1 is the wedding card describing the plaintiff as the adopted daughter of late Paparao and EX.A-2 is the cover of the wedding card. At the time of marriage the adoptive parents gifted the plaintiff AC.2-96 cents of dry land covered by EX.A-3 dated 7 -6-1 ~85, which is the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 33 of 1989 corresponding to plaint C schedule property in O.S. No. 34 of 1989. The plaintiffs marriage was celebrated on 6-6-1985, it is further stated that EX.A-3 document was executed by her adoptive parents in her favour evidencing the Pasupu Kumkuma gift and one Brahmin who came from Karnataka officiated the marriage. The adoptive parents performed the Kanyadanam at the time of marriage. Right from the date of her marriage she had been enjoying the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 33 of 1989. After marriage her husband took her to· Karnataka and the adoptive father used to write, Exs.A-4 to A-15, letters to her. It is stated that her name was also entered in EX.A-16 voters list, which shows that she was living with her adoptive parents. Her adoptive father died on 30-1-1989, as she was in Karnataka, by the time she reached, the dead body was cremated and she only bore the expenses of his obsequies. It is stated that her name was also entered in EX.A-16 voters list, which shows that she was living with her adoptive parents. Her adoptive father died on 30-1-1989, as she was in Karnataka, by the time she reached, the dead body was cremated and she only bore the expenses of his obsequies. The adoptive mothers sisters son-in-law created certain problems and therefore, the adoptive mother became associated with her sister and denied the right accrued in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property gifted under EX.A-3 as well as the properties mentioned in O.S. No. 34 of 1989. Therefore, the said suits were filed. 17. It is noticed that none of the said persons including the so-called purohit namely Viyyanna, who attended the adoption ceremony was examined as witness to prove the factum of adoption. The contents of adoption are not at all corroborated by oral evidence of village elders. Therefore, the oral deposition of P. W.1 cannot be believed as true and correct. 18. In the cross-examination it is stated that her adoptive father, late Paparao, had three brothers viz., Veeranna, Narayana and Pacharyulu and he also had three sisters viz., Subbayamma, Varalakshmi and B. Aravalu. Veeranna had three sons, Narayana had two sons and Pacharyulu had no issues. All the three brothers viz., Paparao, Veeranna and Pacharyulu used to live in one house and Narayana used to live in Dharmavaram. Father of late Paparao and the plaintiffs fathers father are the children of brothers. It is stated that the plaintiff could not say whether she had half share in the properties of late Paparao by the date of her marriage. It is stated that Paparao used to incur debts to some extent for his agricultural expenses and she belongs to Kamma community, in which there is practice of giving amount as dowry to the females and therefore, the plaint C schedule property was given to her husband at the time of marriage. She did not know whether her husband and father-in-law knew that she had half share in the properties of Paparao by the date of her marriage. Her father-in-law migrated to Karnataka prior to her marriage from their village. Herself and her adoptive father never sat together and looked into the account. She did not remember when EX.A-16 voters list was prepared. Her father-in-law migrated to Karnataka prior to her marriage from their village. Herself and her adoptive father never sat together and looked into the account. She did not remember when EX.A-16 voters list was prepared. As her adoptive parents had no children they wanted to adopt somebody to look after them during their last days, as such, they adopted the plaintiff. It is stated that Paparao was sick since a long time prior to his death and he was sick even before her marriage and in spite of it he used to look after the cultivation of lands. There was no exchange of letters between her adoptive father and her father-in-law with regard to the fixation of her marriage etc. After the death of her adoptive father, the plaintiff and the first defendant discussed the assets and liabilities of her adoptive father and it was revealed that there were debts in the banks and her adoptive mother asked her not to go to Karnataka. The plaintiff had not discharged the debts subsequently and she did not try to find out the total debts of her adoptive father. The suggestions that the plaintiff was not at all adopted; EX.A-3 is not true and genuine; no land was given to her towards Pasupu Kumkuma; that she never lived in the house of her adoptive parents; the first defendant alone discharged the debts after the death of the adoptive father and that the suits were filed with a view to knock away the properties of the first defendant, were all denied by the plaintiff. 19. It is further stated that she is the foster and adopted daughter of the adoptive parents, as they fostered her and later adopted her. One M. Pasalu, the elder brother of Paparao, died in December 1993 and on the next day of his death, his wife Venkayamma executed a document gifting half acre of land. EX.29 is the registration copy of the security deed dated 18-5-1974 executed by G. Subba Rao and others in favour of late Paparao and the said property was given as security for item No.4 of plaint A schedule property, which was already sold to late Paparao. 20. EX.29 is the registration copy of the security deed dated 18-5-1974 executed by G. Subba Rao and others in favour of late Paparao and the said property was given as security for item No.4 of plaint A schedule property, which was already sold to late Paparao. 20. Though it was the case of the plaintiff that the said properties are ancestral properties but the evidence goes to show that all the properties are the self-acquired properties of her adoptive father and the claim that the said properties are ancestral properties was not at all proved. Therefore, at the time of the arguments the plaintiff reconciled that even if her adoption is proved she is entitled to 1/2 share only but not to 3/4th share. 21. P.W.2, M. Suryarao-natural father of the plaintiff, stated that the husband of the first defendant, M. Paparao is the son of his senior paternal uncle and late Paparao brought up the plaintiff right from her childhood and on 30-10-1997, the first defendant and her husband adopted the plaintiff in a formal ceremony. A Brahmin by name Viyyanna conducted puja and performed the essential ceremonies and himself and his wife physically delivered the plaintiff during the Course of the ceremony to the adoptive parents. At the time of adoption in the house of the first defendant; M. Bhaskara Rao, M. Rajapattabhi Rama Rao, V. Satyanarayana and other relatives on either side attended the adoption ceremony. Right from the date of the adoption of the plaintiff, she was treated as adoptive daughter of the first defendant and her husband. Late Paparao alone admitted the plaintiff into the school. The first defendant alone performed the necessary ceremonies when the plaintiff attained puberty. Late Paparao performed the marriage of the plaintiff with his sisters son Krishna Rao on 6-6-1985. The wedding cards were printed showing the plaintiff as the daughter of the adoptive parents. With regard to EX.A-3 document it is stated that himself, the first defendant and her husband signed the said document and the plaintiff had been enjoying the property gifted to her. The plaintiff and her husband used to live in Karnataka and there used to be exchange of letters between late Paparao and the father-in-law of the plaintiff. 22. With regard to EX.A-3 document it is stated that himself, the first defendant and her husband signed the said document and the plaintiff had been enjoying the property gifted to her. The plaintiff and her husband used to live in Karnataka and there used to be exchange of letters between late Paparao and the father-in-law of the plaintiff. 22. In the cross-examination it is stated that he did not try to record her adoption in any Government office and one year prior to the actual adoption they decided to give the plaintiff in adoption. When he requested the adoptive parents of the plaintiff to give some properties to her under registered document on the eve of adoption, the adoptive parents stated that their entire property would be given to her and there is no need for any document as she would be the successor of all the properties. At the demand of the plaintiffs husband and father-in-law, Paparao executed EX.A-3 document gifting the said property towards Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of her marriage, which was drafted in the office of an Advocate but the same had not been registered and the plaintiff took possession of the gifted land on the next day of the marriage. There was no tradition of taking photographs at the time of important ceremonies in their community. The marriage photos were taken at the instance of the Paparao only and no photos were taken at the time of adoption ceremony. The adoption ceremony lasted for two or three hours and the said Brahmin Viyyanna is no more and he did not know the customary ceremonies prescribed in their community for adoption. 23. P.W.3 stated that Paparao had no issues and he adopted the plaintiff and brought her up at his house and she was treated as the adopted daughter. He attended the marriage of the plaintiff. On the day of the marriage a gift was made and on the next day the deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff. He was present along with others at the time of execution of EX.A-3. 24. Therefore, P.W.3 was examined only to establish the execution of EX.A-3 document as true and genuine but he was neither present nor witnessed the adoption ceremony. 25. P.WA, who was also examined to prove Ex.A-3, stated that the plaintiff was being treated as adopted daughter. He was present along with others at the time of execution of EX.A-3. 24. Therefore, P.W.3 was examined only to establish the execution of EX.A-3 document as true and genuine but he was neither present nor witnessed the adoption ceremony. 25. P.WA, who was also examined to prove Ex.A-3, stated that the plaintiff was being treated as adopted daughter. P.W.5 stated that the plaintiff was adopted in 1977 and adopted ceremony was performed in the house of the first defendant and the natural parents delivered the plaintiff to the first defendant and her husband and they accepted the plaintiff. The relatives of both the sides nearly about 100 attended the ceremony and the husband of the first defendant arranged a feast to the invitees. The adoption ceremony was over by 7.30 a.m. and the lunch was arranged by 10.30 a.m. In the cross-examination he stated that no invitation cards were distributed among kith and kin on the eve of adoption and he did not know if written invitations were sent to the relatives stationed outside Dharmavaram. He did not know whether photos were taken while the ceremony was in progress and he did not know whether adoption was recorded in any Government office. No formal adoption deed was executed in proof of the adoption. It is stated that adoption would be taken with the hope that the adoptee would perform the funeral and other ceremonies of the adoptive parents after their death but in their community girls will not perform the obsequies of their parents. 26. The first defendant examined as D.W.1 stated that herself and her husband - Paparao never brought up the plaintiff or anybody and she is not at all their adopted daughter and they have never executed EX.A-3 document in favour of the plaintiff and the signatures on EX.A-3 do not belong to them and all the properties have been purchased by her husband only and they are not ancestral properties. She is the only legal heir of her husband. Exs.B-1 to B-4 are the discharged pronotes with regard to the debts discharged by her due to the Cooperative Central Bank and other banks and certain debts are still subsisting in respect of certain loans. She is the only legal heir of her husband. Exs.B-1 to B-4 are the discharged pronotes with regard to the debts discharged by her due to the Cooperative Central Bank and other banks and certain debts are still subsisting in respect of certain loans. The plaintiff was never in possession of plaint C schedule property and all the properties were in continuous possession of her husband and after his death, the properties were in her continuous possession only and the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in respect of the plant schedule properties. The natural father of the plaintiff is the cousin brother of late Paparao. The plaintiffs husband is the son of Boppana Doraiah, who is the husband of Paparaos sister. It is stated that herself and her husband performed the Kanyadanam ceremony at the time of marriage. As she was illiterate she could not identify the handwriting or signatures and could not read the contents of any documents. She did not go through any wedding card at any time. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed in their house only. They never adopted the plaintiff. Her husband used to sell tobacco at Guntur and he used to go to Guntur for bringing the money. It is stated that her husband executed certain pronotes but she did not know the details of the amounts borrowed by him and the suggestion that he has executed EX.A-3 was denied. It is stated that the property covered by EX.A-3 was never gifted to the plaintiff. It is stated the certain documents are still pledged into the bank, therefore, the certified copies of the same have been obtained to prove that all the properties are the self-acquired properties of her husband. 27. D.W.2 and D.W.3 working as Secretary, PACS, Kapavaram and Supervisor, District Co-operative Central Bank, Eluru respectively were examined to prove that late Paparao obtained certain loans by depositing title deeds, ryotwari passbooks, adangals etc. which goes to show that the said properties are self-acquired properties of late Paparao. 28. D.WA stated that Paparao had no issues and he never adopted anybody and the plaintiff is the daughter of Surya Rao. The plaintiffs marriage was performed by Surya Rao but her Kanyadanam was performed by Paparao and the first defendant in the hope that if they perform Kanyadanam, they would beget children in the future. 28. D.WA stated that Paparao had no issues and he never adopted anybody and the plaintiff is the daughter of Surya Rao. The plaintiffs marriage was performed by Surya Rao but her Kanyadanam was performed by Paparao and the first defendant in the hope that if they perform Kanyadanam, they would beget children in the future. No wedding cards were printed on the eve of marriage and only through a barbar a communication was sent to the relatives and he attended the marriage. No land was gifted to the plaintiff by Paparao during the course of the marriage. 29. D.W.5 stated that Papara9 had no issues and he did not adopt anybody. The plaintiff is the daughter of Surya Rao alone. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed by Surya Rao but Kanyadanam was performed by Paparao and his wife. 30. D.W.6, the second defendant, to establish his right, title and interest in respect of item 4 of plaint A schedule property stated that the said property was purchased by his grand father in 1936. Thereafter his father and brothers of his father divided the joint family properties in 1957. EX.B-16 is the 10 (1) account of the settlement deed standing in his name. The first defendant filed the suit against him and his brothers in respect of the said property. Veerraju and Gopalarao are the brothers of his father Subba Rao and he did not know whether his father filed declarations before the land ceiling authority showing that the suit land i.e., item 4 of plaint A schedule property, in his holding and the suggestion that the said Veerraju and Gopalarao executed a sale deed in favour of Paparao was denied. He cannot say till which year Paparao was in possession of that property. It is true that Paparao mortgaged the said property to a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and raised a loan and he did not know during which year he raised that loan. He came to know that as Paparao failed to discharge the debt the society brought the said item for sale and he did not know during which year his father took possession of the said property. The suggestion that Paparao was in continuous possession of the said property for more than 20 years was denied. He came to know that as Paparao failed to discharge the debt the society brought the said item for sale and he did not know during which year his father took possession of the said property. The suggestion that Paparao was in continuous possession of the said property for more than 20 years was denied. He admitted that there is no documentary evidence in his custody to show that they leased out the said item to Paparao. He stated that he did not know the first defendant and he did not know whether his father gave his house property as a security while selling item 4 of plaint A schedule property to Paparao. It is stated that EX.B-19 was issued during the pendency of the suit filed by the first defendant for injunction. 31. As already stated EX.A-1 is the printed wedding card, EX.A-2 is the cover of the wedding card, EX.A-3 is the document said to have been executed by the first defendant and her husband Paparao wherein it has been recited that right from childhood the plaintiff was brought up by her adoptive parents and she was adopted as per the agreement between the natural parents and adopted parents and thus, the plaintiff is the adopted daughter and she was treated as the only daughter of the adoptive parents and it is the duty of the adoptive parents to perform the marriage and look after the welfare of the plaintiff. As per the caste custom the right of the plaintiff was recognized in accordance with law and the marriage was performed on 6-6-1985 and the plaint C schedule property was given to the plaintiff towards Pasupu Kumkuma. Five persons attested the said document in addition the sixth person was the scribe. Exs.A-4 to A-15 are the letters written by Paparao to the father-in-law of the plaintiff. EX.A-16 is the voters list prepared in the year 1986 i.e., six months after the marriage of the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the adoptive parents performed the Kanyadanam of plaintiff, which is evident from Exs.A-17 to A-27. EX.A-28 is also the printed wedding card. EX.A-29 is the document executed in 1974 by the owners of item 4 of plaint A schedule property registering by registered deed giving the house of the second defendant as security for the sale of item 4 of plaint A schedule property. EX.A-28 is also the printed wedding card. EX.A-29 is the document executed in 1974 by the owners of item 4 of plaint A schedule property registering by registered deed giving the house of the second defendant as security for the sale of item 4 of plaint A schedule property. Admittedly the second defendant got himself impleaded in the suit for partition as per the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Kowur dated 2-12-1992 in I.A.No.1645 of 1992 in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 voluntarily claiming item 4 of the plaint A schedule property. 32. Exs.B-1 to B-4 are the discharged promissory notes executed by Paparao in favour of his creditors. Exs.X-1 to X-6 are the documents relating to the title deeds of Paparao and the applications filed by Paparao before the Co-operative Central Bank for raising loans. However, in the family tree given on the rear side of the loan applications Exs.X-4 to X-6, Paparao never showed the plaintiff as his daughter and in fact, stated that he had no issues. 33. Therefore, the main question that has to be considered based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence as appreciated by the Court below is as to whether the factum of adoption has been proved or not. 34. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the Act) no doubt the adoptive parents are qualified and entitled to adopt the plaintiff and the natural parents are also entitled to give the plaintiff in adoption as per the requisites mentioned under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Act. But whether the conditions for a valid adoption as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act have been proved or not is the crucial question that arises for consideration. As per Section 11 of the Act in every adoption the conditions that are required to be complied with are that the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth to the family of its adoption. Once the adoption takes effect the adoptive child shall be deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents. Once the adoption is validly made such adoption cannot be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any person under Section 15 of the Act. Once the adoption takes effect the adoptive child shall be deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents. Once the adoption is validly made such adoption cannot be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any person under Section 15 of the Act. Under Section 16 of the Act there is a presumption as to the registered document relating to adoption. If the document is registered under any law for the time being in force as produced before the Court purporting to record the adoption made and is signed by the person giving and person taking the child in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. Therefore, the other question that arises for consideration is as to whether the adoption requires to be reduced in writing. The adoption deed need not be registered compulsorily but if it is registered a legal presumption is available in favour of the adopted child. 35. In the instant case, the plaintiff is said to have been adopted when she was 12 years old, therefore, the statement of P.W.2, the father of the plaintiff, that the adoptive father only admitted the plaintiff into the school cannot be believed as admittedly there was no school record at all entering the name of Paparao as the father of the plaintiff and no deed of adoption was executed recording the giving and taking in adoption. The ceremonies are said to have been performed in the presence of the aforesaid persons but except P.W.3 no other person who was present at the time of the ceremony was examined including the Brahmin who is said to have performed the ceremonies. Though it is stated that the said Brahmin was no more, no record has been placed before the Court with regard to the said Brahmin being alive or dead. 36. The natural father of the plaintiff is an educated person and it is evident that he knows English also as he has signed in English in the deposition as well as the other document EX.A-3 as attesting witness. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that the natural father has not at all insisted to record the taking and giving ceremony of adoption by the adoptive parents. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that the natural father has not at all insisted to record the taking and giving ceremony of adoption by the adoptive parents. As stated by the witnesses it is a practice in their community that whoever does not have issues would like to perform Kanyadanam. Merely because the first defendant and late Paparao have performed Kanyadanam, it cannot be assumed and presumed that they are the adoptive parents of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the father-in-law of the plaintiff being sisters husband of the adoptive father of the plaintiff, certain inland letters have been written and in fact, EX.A-4 letter had been written much prior to the marriage of the plaintiff. However, in none of the letters except saying Baby nowhere it is stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of the adoptive parents. When number of photos have been taken on the eve of the marriage it is very difficult to understand as to why no photographs have been taken during the process of adoption ceremony. It is also pertinent to note that the said Doraiah father -in-law of the plaintiff was not at all examined, the sister of Paparao i.e., mother-in-law of the plaintiff and even the husband of the plaintiff was also not examined to prove that specific possession given under EX.A-3. Insofar as EX.A-3 is concerned it was drafted by an advocate as if the property was given to the plaintiff towards Pasupu kumkuma and admittedly the said document is neither properly stamped nor registered and therefore, it is inadmissible in law as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gandevalla Jayaram Reddy v. Mokkala Padmavathamma. Even the transfer of immovable property by way of Pasupu Kumkuma requires requisite registration under the Registration Act. The transfer of property towards Pasupu Kumkuma is a gift of immovable property, the consideration whereof would be love and affection could come within the meaning of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, such transaction would attract the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and requires registration. 37. However, with regard to the existence of EX.A-3 document which was drafted on the legal advice, the Court below couching the language of the decision reported in 1979 (2) A.P.L.J. 421 commented that the said document cannot be relied upon to judge whether the adoption pleaded is true or not. 37. However, with regard to the existence of EX.A-3 document which was drafted on the legal advice, the Court below couching the language of the decision reported in 1979 (2) A.P.L.J. 421 commented that the said document cannot be relied upon to judge whether the adoption pleaded is true or not. Even P.W.5 also stated that there is no record recording the ceremony of adoption and no photographs were taken during the course of the ceremony. According to their caste custom the adoption would be taken with a hope that the adopted child would perform the obsequies of the adoptive parents after their death. However, it is stated that in Kamma Community males will be adopted to look after the property and help the adoptive patents in the old age. Even according to P.W.1 it is stated that her mother-in-law requested her to stay at her house and not to go to Karnataka, but the fact remains that she was living at Karnataka with her husband and father in-law and she never stayed at the first defendants place after marriage except for the purpose of delivery. Though EX.A-16 voters list shows the plaintiff as an voter in the house of the adoptive parents the same was recorded six months after the marriage of the plaintiff and more so in the absence of any foolproof evidence to the giving and taking her in adoption by the natural father in favour of the adoptive parents it may not be just and proper to uphold the contentions of the plaintiff that she is the adopted daughter of the first defendant and her husband. Adoption is a sacrosanct and solemn ceremony. Therefore, generally it has to be reduced into writing but absolutely there is no record to show that any such ceremony of adoption was reduced into writing. The adoption deed does not require to be registered but if it is registered there would be a legal presumption in favour of the adopted child unless and until the contents of the same are disproved by cogent evidence. Even without any formal unregistered deed also, no doubt, the adoption can be proved if any cogent and believable evidence is adduced showing any record that the name of the adoptive father only was entered in the column fathers name. Even without any formal unregistered deed also, no doubt, the adoption can be proved if any cogent and believable evidence is adduced showing any record that the name of the adoptive father only was entered in the column fathers name. There is no record to show that the name of Paparao was recorded as father of the plaintiff except Ex.A-3, which was rightly disbelieved by the Court below. Even in the applications filed before the Bank for raising loans the adoptive father stated that he had no issues. 38. Generally in the agricultural family of Kamma Community one would adopt male child only to assist the adoptive parents in the agricultural operations and to take care of the adoptive parents in the old age. No doubt, there is no prohibition to adopt female child, but in the instant case the plaintiff was given in marriage in Karnataka State and she never stayed at the house of the adoptive parents after marriage. There is no evidence about her residing in the house of adoptive parents even prior to their marriage. There are no records to show that she had been brought up at the house of the adoptive parents. If somebody agitates the question of adoption it has to be proved meticulously. The burden to prove the ceremony of adoption and the factum of giving and taking in adoption heavily lies on the plaintiff, which the plaintiff utterly failed to establish. I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly appreciated the or a land documentary evidence in proper perspective and held that the plaintiff failed to establish the adoption and also EX.A-3 document gifting the plaint C schedule property to the plaintiff towards Paspu kumkuma. 39. In view of he aforesaid suspicious circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish the adoption. With regard to wedding cards also the Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the same can be brought into existence at a later point of time, as it was stated that the occasion of marriage was communicated to the relatives and others only through a barber. The first and second points are accordingly held against the plaintiff and in favour of the first defendant. The first and second points are accordingly held against the plaintiff and in favour of the first defendant. Insofar as the third point, as to whether the second defendant is entitled to claim item 4 of the plaint A schedule property, is concerned, EX.A-29 registered security deed dated 18-5-1974 executed by G. Subbarao and others in favour of Paparao and the house of the second defendant was given as security for item 4 which was already sold to Paparao, was not at all questioned. Even the father of the plaintiff had made no claim in respect of the-said property. In fact, D.W.6 - the second defendant admitted in his oral deposition that Paparao raised loans on the said property and he was in possession of the said property during his lifetime and he did not know when his father took possession of the said property. Absolutely, no evidence has been adduced with regard to the contention that the second defendant or his father was in possession of the said property. However, it is the case of the first defendant that the said property was in possession of Paparao for last more than 25 years. The persons who executed EX.A-29 never questioned the right, title or interest of Paparao over the said property and though the second defendant voluntarily impleaded himself in the partition suit he failed to establish his claim over item 4 of the plaint A schedule property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly believed EX.A-29 security deed and rightly rejected the claim of the second respondent. Therefore, the second defendant is not entitled to any relief in A.S.No.967 of 1997. 40. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, all the appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.