JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. 1. All these above three appeals have been heard together for their disposal by this common Judgment. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties having no objection for analogous hearing advanced their submissions accordingly. First Appeal No. 227 of 1978 arises out of the Title Suit No. 59 of 1975 of the Court of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal (as it was then) filed by the Appellant as the Plaintiff for partition & other reliefs. 1.1. First Appeal No. 237 of 1993 relates to Title Suit No. 81 of 1975 of the Court of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal (as it was then), which was filed by the Appellant as the Plaintiff in respect of a piece of Government lease hold land. 1.2. First Appeal No. 238 of 1993 concerns with Title Suit No. 11 of 1975 of the Court of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal (as it was then) & it was filed by the Appellant as Plaintiff in respect of land of Hemamali Dhal the wife of one Rasananda, on whose death Rasananda had subsequently married Bichhamali Dhal the original Respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 1 in the Court below) since dead." 2. It is pertinent to mention here that all the above noted suits along with another suit bearing Title Suit No. 20 of 1977 of the Court of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal (as it was then) were heard analogously & disposed of accordingly. No appeal has been filed challenging the decision in Title Suit No. 20 of 1977 by any of the parties to the said suit & the Appellant claims to have not been aggrieved by the ultimate result of the suit, & thus has not filed any appeal. It is worthwhile to note that FA. Nos. 237 of 1993 & 238 of 1993 have been received by this Court on transfer from the Court of the District Judge, Dhenkanal whereas FA. No. 227 of 1978 was from the very beginning filed in this Court Above four suits, i.e., Title Suit Nos. 59 of 1975, 11 of 1975, 81 of 1975 & 21 of 1977 were heard analogously in the Court below & disposed of by Judgment dated 30.06.1978. No. 227 of 1978 was from the very beginning filed in this Court Above four suits, i.e., Title Suit Nos. 59 of 1975, 11 of 1975, 81 of 1975 & 21 of 1977 were heard analogously in the Court below & disposed of by Judgment dated 30.06.1978. The reason is that most of the parties to Title suit No. 59 of 1975 are the parties to the other suits & the important issues in all these suits standing for determination remain the same & the answer to the same have the effect of final determination of the fate of all the suits without going to answer any other issues. The vital issue concerns with status as well as the locus standi of the Appellant in bringing the suit & thus having right over the subject matter. So, the Trial Court has recorded one set of evidence & has taken up hearing of all the suits giving opportunity to all 'the parties & one set of issues have been framed of course going through to the pleadings of all the suits. 3. Now, let us go to state in nutshell the facts of each of the suits & as discussed under the above common Judgment followed by separate decrees. But before that the admitted facts common to all the suits may be stated. 3.1. One Rasananda Dhal had his properties coming through inheritance & other modes of acquisitions & it may be stated here that although the sources of acquisition are not admitted, the same have very little bearing at present for the decisions in these appeal. Rasananda married one Hemamali in 1923 who died in the year 1974 without leaving any issue. So, subsequently in or about the year 1942 Rasananda again married Bichhamali (Defendant No. 1 in T.S. No. 59 of 1975). No child was also born to them since their marriage. This Rasananda was the Sarvarkar of village Lahada & also Zimadar something akin to that of a Manager of the deity named 'Pratiyadeb'. There is no dispute as regards the genealogy of family of Rasananda that Danei was the common ancestor & he had two sons, namely, Prahallad one of the Defendants representing one branch & Rasananda's father & paternal uncle are the members of the other branch. Gurucharana the fattier of Padmanav & Banabihari are of the another branch. 4. There is no dispute as regards the genealogy of family of Rasananda that Danei was the common ancestor & he had two sons, namely, Prahallad one of the Defendants representing one branch & Rasananda's father & paternal uncle are the members of the other branch. Gurucharana the fattier of Padmanav & Banabihari are of the another branch. 4. Let us now state the facts giving rise to individual suits. 4.1. Title Suit No. 59 of 1975 It is the case of the Plaintiff (Appellant) that Rasananda had no child either through his first wife Hemamali or second wife Bichhamali. So, he thought of adopting a son & accordingly Rasananda adopted the Plaintiff on 'Sripanchami' day of the year 1953 & thereafter was brought up by Rasananda & given in marriage on 15.05.1965. Rasananda executed a deed of acknowledgement of adoption which was registered. As things were running smoothly the problem arose some time after the marriage of Upendra, the Plaintiff that Bichhamali (Defendant No. 1) the wife of Rasananda & his wife had some fallout & the relationship came strained. It came to such a stage that Bichhamali gave a proposal to the Plaintiff to divorce his wife, nay impossible on his part to obey. The properties of Schedule 'A' & 'B' are the ancestral properties & also are acquired through income therefrom. With advancement of age Rasananda developed senility & remained fully under the clutch & control of Bichhamali, who also got her own brother (Defendant No. 4) as the advisor. So, under their influence & ill advice, Rasananda without any necessity & without receiving any consideration went on executing sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 to 12 while gifting away some land to Bichhamali. The Plaintiff was then staying at Rengali & carrying on business there & it was during the period 1969-73 when most of the transfers were made. He came to know about these later, on his return from Rengali that besides the sales & gift to deprive him, also a deed of cancellation of earlier deed of acknowledgement of adoption had also been executed. Rasananda had no such requirement of money & he was, in fact, lending money & paddy to different persons & was never under any sort of want. Rasananda had no such requirement of money & he was, in fact, lending money & paddy to different persons & was never under any sort of want. By these nominal & sham sale deeds, none of the so called transferees remained in possession of the properties purported to have been transferred. The Plaintiff then in view of his status as the adopted son of Rasananda asked for partition of the properties described in the schedule of the plaint & that being denied, the above noted suit was to be filed. The Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 12 & 13 filed one set of written statement followed by Defendant Nos. 5 & 6 through their guardian & another set of written statement was filed by Defendant Nos. 14 & 16. Defendant No. 7 also filed his separate written statement. The case of adoption as pleaded by the Plaintiff, has been denied by Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 12 & 13. So, the challenge is with regard to the status of the Plaintiff as has been advanced & that is projected as the main ground to nonsuit the Plaintiff. They have also taken a plea of limitation that when such factum of adoption was denied by the so called adoptive father, the suit after a lapse of three years is not to be entertained. As regards to the challenge to transactions made by Rasananda on the ground of absence of necessity, the same is also said to be beyond the period of limitation & not entertainable. They have pleaded all in support of sales made by Rasananda. The written statement of Defendant Nos. 14 to 16 almost runs at par with that of Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 12 & 13. They submit that the lands being under one holding were not partitioned in metes & bounds. Defendant No. 17 has pleaded a specific case that she had been adopted by Rasananda. 4.2. Title Suit No. 11 of 1975 Rasananda's first wife was Hemamali. 14 to 16 almost runs at par with that of Defendant Nos. 1, 4, 12 & 13. They submit that the lands being under one holding were not partitioned in metes & bounds. Defendant No. 17 has pleaded a specific case that she had been adopted by Rasananda. 4.2. Title Suit No. 11 of 1975 Rasananda's first wife was Hemamali. The Plaintiff having stated the facts as narrated above in the forgoing paragraph in T.S. No. 59 of 1976 concerning his adoption etc., has taken a plea that the properties described in the schedule of the plaint were the acquisitions of Hemamali & as such her Streedhan property & she was in separate possession of the same & after her death in accordance with the provision of Hindu Succession Act, the lands have devolved upon Upendra, the Plaintiff as the adopted son & he is continuing to possess the same. The sole Defendant of the suit is Defendant No. 1 of Title Suit No. 59 of 1975. The suit was filed since Defendant threatened the possession of the Plaintiff. The case of the Bichhamali is again the denial of the status of the Plaintiff as the adopted son of Rasananda, denial of fact that the properties were the Streedhan property of Hemamali with specific pleading that Rasananda acquired the property & not Hemamali, who was simply a name-lender without any contribution to the consideration at the time of acquisition & without having any source of generation of the fund. So it is claimed that the properties remained with Rasananda all along. Here Bichhamali pleads that she & Rasananda had adopted Ratnaprava, the daughter of Kalandi, who is the brother of Bichhamali as their adopted daughter & so she stands as a co-owner & is also in possession having her legal entitlement over the same. To sum up the Defendant denied the acquisitions as pleaded that the acquisitions in the name of Hemamali were benami & asserted that the Plaintiff had nothing to do with the said land being a stranger & having also not remained in possession over the same at any time has no right whatsoever. 4.3. Title Suit No. 31 of 1975 The subject matter of the suit is a piece of Government waste land, which was in possession of Rasananda after hiving reclaimed it prior to 1950 & making it fit for cultivation. 4.3. Title Suit No. 31 of 1975 The subject matter of the suit is a piece of Government waste land, which was in possession of Rasananda after hiving reclaimed it prior to 1950 & making it fit for cultivation. The Plaintiff being the adopted son of Rasananda succeeded to all his right & remained in possession of the same. It is stated that one day in the month of June, 1975, the Defendant No. 8 came & obstructed the Plaintiff from sowing paddy. It was then inquired into & found that a lease was initially obtained in the name of Defendant No. 2-Kailash, the son of Kalandi Jena, who is the brother of Bichhamali in the year 1974 & that Kailash in turn in March, 1975 transferred the land in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 & 4 the grand sons of Defendant No. 8. So, all these transactions are attacked in the suit as collusive, conferring no title upon the Defendants. The Defendants flied joint written statement first of all denying the status of the Plaintiff as the adopted son of Rasananda. Defendant No. 1, Kalandi claims to have reclaimed the land & to have got it on lease & to have made the subsequent transactions as its rightful owner which are thus immune from attack. 4.4. Title Suit No. 20 of 1977 In this suit the present Appellant is not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs are the two sons of Gurucharana & it was filed against one Prahallad, Bichhamali & Ratnaprava. There Ratnaprava's status as the adopted daughter of Bichhamali & Rasananda has been narrated. It is claimed that the family had separated in mess & property long back with distribution of movable & immovable properties on mutual agreements but the properties described in schedule 'D' & 'F' remained undivided which are of branch of Pranabandhu, the grandfather of Rasananda & Gurucharana & despite demand those properties were not partitioned. The branch of Plaintiffs having sold away the lands in schedule 'F', equitable adjustment was also sought for. Defendant Nos. 1,2 & 3 did not contest the suit & entered into a compromise. The present Appellant, who is the Plaintiff of the other three suits, contested the suit on the strength of his asserted status as the adopted son of Rasananda denying all those facts pleading to the contrary & in favour of his right & entitlement. Defendant Nos. 1,2 & 3 did not contest the suit & entered into a compromise. The present Appellant, who is the Plaintiff of the other three suits, contested the suit on the strength of his asserted status as the adopted son of Rasananda denying all those facts pleading to the contrary & in favour of his right & entitlement. He had taken a plea that there was a completed prior partition, while further challenging the compromise in the suit as stated above being with the sole aim of depriving him of all the properties. The suit having been dismissed, the present Appellant, who is the main contesting Defendant in the suit & also the Plaintiff in other three suits had nothing to feel aggrieved & so has not filed any appeal. 5. The suits having been analogously heard the following set of issues have been framed & thereafter one set of evidence having been recorded by giving opportunities to the parties of all the suits, the issues have been taken up for decision. The following are those issues noted with the answers of the Trial Court. "(i) Was Upendra ever adopted by late Rasananda as was he treated as such from 1953? -Answered in the negative. (ii) Was Ratnaprava adopted by Rasananda & has she any right in the properties in dispute in this suit? -Answered in the negative. (iii) Were the lands given in the schedule to the plaint of T.S. 11 of 75 the lands of Hemamali & were they acquired Benami by Rasananda? -Answered in affirmative. (iv) Was there no partition of the lands described in schedules B to E of T.S. No. 20 of 77. If not can the compromise entered into between the Plaintiffs & Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 be lawfully recorded? -Answered in the affirmative leaving the ancillary Issue as can't so recorded. (v) Was Rasananda in possession of the lands relating to T.S. 81 of 75. If so, since when & what right could be have acquired? -Answered with issue No. 6 (see below). (vi) Was the lease granted in favour of Kailash vitiated by fraud and/or procedural irregularities & was not the sale in favour of Tapan & Prabal supported by consideration & valid? Both Issue Nos. 5 & 6 are answered together holding the transactions as vitiated by fraud but the Plaintiff's right to challenge is denied. (vi) Was the lease granted in favour of Kailash vitiated by fraud and/or procedural irregularities & was not the sale in favour of Tapan & Prabal supported by consideration & valid? Both Issue Nos. 5 & 6 are answered together holding the transactions as vitiated by fraud but the Plaintiff's right to challenge is denied. (vii) Were all the lands described in the schedules to the plaint in T.S. No. 89/76 joint family properties or were any of those lands the self acquisitions of the Late Rasananda? -Answered as joint family properties but only in case of answer on issue No. 1 is given otherwise as held. (viii) Were the sales by Rasananda show transactions & not supported by consideration or were they for necessities? -Answered against said transactions holding those as colourable & Shan transactions. (ix) Is the Plaintiff, Upendra, obliged to sue for a declaration regarding his adoption? If so, is the suit maintainable? (x) Is the suit, is time? Both the issue Nos. 9 & 10 got answered according to the answer on issue No. 1 (xi) To what relief are the parties entitled? Not granted." 6. The Trial Court at the outset has taken up Issue No. (i) for decision as that concerns with the status of Upendra (Plaintiff), which has been called in question by the Appellant before this Court in all the three appeals. The reason for taking this issue for decision at the outset is that the fate of all the suits are practically dependent upon the answer on this issue that whether Upendra is having any locus standie to file the suits in respect of the subject matter or advance any claim unto himself on the basis of the said asserted status as the adopted son of Rasananda. Learned Counsel for the parties are unanimous on the point that in all these three appeals that is the only issue staring for answer by examining the correctness & sustain ability of the finding of the Trial Court. It is also submitted that except issue No. (i), answers as rendered by Trial Court are not open for consideration as the parties aggrieved by said answers or decisions have neither filed appeals nor any cross appeal or cross objections have been advanced. It is also submitted that except issue No. (i), answers as rendered by Trial Court are not open for consideration as the parties aggrieved by said answers or decisions have neither filed appeals nor any cross appeal or cross objections have been advanced. So now this Court for disposal of these three appeals is called upon to examine the sustainability of the decision on issue No. (i) as rendered by Trial Court by going for appreciation of evidence on record considering the rival pleadings & submissions in the backdrop of the settled position of law. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant attacks the finding on the said issue by submitting that the same is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. According to him, the Appellant has proved through clear, cogent & acceptable evidence the factum of adoption not only by proving the giving & taking ceremony but also the subsequent & long standing recognition of the said status of the Appellant & his relationship as such with Rasananda & his wife Bichhamali by the Society at large & also by other relations etc. Placing the evidence on record, he has one by one pointed out the deficiencies in appreciation of evidence as done by the Trial Court. In course of his submission placing each of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in negating the factum of adoption of the Appellant by Rasananda he has pointed out as to how those are untenable. Therefore, his submission is that the decision on this issue No. 1 as rendered by the Trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law & is, thus, liable to set aside. 8. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents submits that the finding of the Trial Court negating the case of adoption as set up by the Appellant is based on just & proper-appreciation of evidence &, according to him, the evidence on record do not at all justify a finding in the affirmative on the said issue. In course of submission, he has also drawn the attention of this Court to the oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his contention that the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving his status as that of the adopted son of Rasananda. In course of submission, he has also drawn the attention of this Court to the oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his contention that the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving his status as that of the adopted son of Rasananda. It is also his submission that evidence let in by the Appellant to establish the case of adoption are not only insufficient but also those are unacceptable being viewed cumulatively with evidence adduced by adversary & other circumstances emerging in evidence. 9. In view of above rival contention, let us proceed to examine the correctness of the decision of the Trial Court on that issue by analyzing the evidence & record on the touchstone of the pleadings keeping the respective submission in mind & also the position of law. 10. The Appellant's case as projected in the plaint is that on Sripanchami day of the year 1953, the giving & taking ceremony took place & so also his adoption by Rasananda & his wife. The Appellant as Plaintiff has not set up a case of ancient adoption & has chosen to adduce direct evidence on that score. The contesting Respondents stand is that there was never any such adoption. 11. The position of law is quite well settled that since an adoption diverts the normal & natural course of succession; the Court has to be extremely alert & vigilant to guard against being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practice out of their lust for property. If there are only suspicious circumstances, 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. (Rahasa Pandiari (Dead) by LRs & others vrs. Gokulananda Panda & ors, (1987) 2 S.C.C. 338 . 12. The Apex Court in case of Kishori Lal vrs. Mt. Chaltibai AIR 1959 S.C. 504 , has also held as under:-- "As an adoption results in changing the course of succession depriving wives & daughters of their rights & transferring properties to comparative stranger or more remote relations, it is necessary that evidence to support it should be such that, it is free from all suspicion of fraud & so consistent & probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. This Court in the cases of Prafulla Kumar Biswal vrs. Sashi Beura & ors, 1989 OLR (I) 425, Sulei Bewa & ors. vrs. Gurubari Rana, AIR 1971 Orissa 299 & Arjun Banchhar vrs. Bacchi Banchhar AIR 1999 Orissa 32 has also authoritatively held that as an adoption displaces natural succession, the burden to establish the adoption is squarely on the person who propounds & that burden is heavy." 12.1. Furthermore, in R. Lakshman Singh Kothari vrs. Smt. Rupa Kanwar, AIR 1961 S.C. 1378 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that under the Hindu Law whether among the regenerate caste or among sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another & that can be done only by the ceremony of giving & taking. The object of the corporeal giving & receiving in adoption is to secure publicity. To achieve this object, it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular from is prescribed for the ceremony but the law requires that the natural parents shall hand over the adoptive boy & the adoptive parents shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, & giving & taking shall be part of its. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine delegation & therefore, the parents after exercising their volition to give & take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy & receiving him as the case may be to a third party. 12.2. In the case of L. Debhi Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. vrs. Smt. Tribeni Devi & ors. AIR 1970 SC 1286 , it has also been held that giving & receiving are absolutely necessary to the validity of an adoption & they are the operative part of the ceremony being that part of it which transfers the boy from one family to anywhere. vrs. Smt. Tribeni Devi & ors. AIR 1970 SC 1286 , it has also been held that giving & receiving are absolutely necessary to the validity of an adoption & they are the operative part of the ceremony being that part of it which transfers the boy from one family to anywhere. Thus, the ceremony of giving & taking is very essential to be proved by clear, cogent & acceptable evidence dispelling all such suspicions whatsoever in that connection for deciding the validity of an adoption as in the present case, where adoption is not projected as an ancient one & instead evidence has been led, inasmuch as, by examining the persons in whose presence the ceremony took place being then available to testify. 13. The Appellant has been examined as P.W.1. He has deposed that Rasananda adopted him in 1953. But he has not stated as to what were the age of adoptive & natural parents, when there only remains the pleading that he was six years old. He states that the adoption took place in the house of Rasananda & his natural father Banamali, the first wife of Rasananda, i.e., Hemamali & so also the second wife Bichhamali were present with others whom he names. P.W.1 has deposed at the age of 31 years & the ceremony is said to have taken place 25 years back when he was aged about six years. From the very beginning, it does not appear to be a sound proposition that boy of six years old would be remembering the tit bits of ceremony by even stating the names of the persons present then with further details as to when the priest as well as barber came & what he did & also the role of an astrologer. It is hard to believe that P.W.1 then had known those persons even as' priest, barber & astrologer which also does not appeal to common sense & that we only read from some stories but hardly experience in reality. It is hard to believe that P.W.1 then had known those persons even as' priest, barber & astrologer which also does not appeal to common sense & that we only read from some stories but hardly experience in reality. Moreso, about the performance of Homo as to who asked for giving & taking & who as well as how he was given & by whom taken & also that as to what then was the conversation, even the person having photogenic memory is not expected to give all such detail account of what he had seen at a time when he was six years old. P.W.2 is another witness aged about 79 years., Being examined, he has stated that he was asked by Rasananda on the Sripanchami day to go to attend adoption ceremony & so he had gone in the evening. He is not stating as to where he was asked to go & to which place he, in fact, went. His evidence is that he saw 'Homo' being performed by Krishna Nanda & there one Bholi Nahak recited Mangalastaka. He is also naming one Purendra Pahi to be present there' as Barber when it is stated by P.W.1 that the barber was one Narahari Barik. As regards the presence of an astrologer as has been stated by P.W.1, this P.W.2 is silent. His evidence is that Banamali gave Upendra by taking him near Rasananda & Rasananda accepted. He is totally silent about presence of Hemamali or Bichhamali there & as regards their role, if any, so also as to whether natural mother of Upendra, i.e., wife of Banamali if was present or not. Next is the evidence of P.W.3 who is an agnate of Rasananda. He has also been examined to prove the giving & taking ceremony. It is his evidence that on being asked by the astrologer (not named), the Plaintiff clad in new cloth was taken by Banamali to Rasananda when Banamali said that he was giving his son in adoption, Rasananda taking the boy said that he took the boy in adoption. This is neither stated by P.W.1 nor P.W.2. During cross examination, this witness has said that he had seen the entire ceremony & no one went away in the mid of the ceremony. This witness is silent with regard to the presence of P.W.2 in the said ceremony. This is neither stated by P.W.1 nor P.W.2. During cross examination, this witness has said that he had seen the entire ceremony & no one went away in the mid of the ceremony. This witness is silent with regard to the presence of P.W.2 in the said ceremony. P.W.4 is the brother of Hemamali, the first wife of Rasananda. He has also been examined to prove the giving & taking ceremony. He says that both the wives of Rasananda were present there. His evidence is to the effect that the adoption took place at about 8 Gadhi in the night by stating that after taking Upendra, Rasananda gave it to Hemamali. The witness is silent on the score as to if the boy was also taken by Bichhamali which is of great importance. The family priest has not been examined & instead his son (P.W.5) has been examined, who was deposed that on that date he had gone to discharge the duty. P.W.1 has interestingly stated that after 3 to 4 days of adoption, he went back from Lahada to the house of his natural parents at Kotapur. These are all the oral evidence with regard to the ceremony of giving & taking. The above oral evidence do not go to establish the giving & taking ceremony as well as the factum of adoption as those are neither consistent nor free from doubt & rather bristle with improbabilities. 14. Next, let us go to the documentary evidence. The first is a deed of acknowledgement of adoption (Ext. 2) said to have been executed in the year 1965. The document has been challenged as the outcome of pressure & deception, at the instance of Upendra, the Appellant who was in a position to dominate the will of Rasananda & when also litigations were running in respect of properties of Rasananda. However, as it appears the said facet that it was the result of coercion or fraud has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by leading any evidence by the parties pleading against adoption. Rasananda was a person capable of managing his own affairs & he was identified therein by Kalandi his brother-in-law. However, as it appears the said facet that it was the result of coercion or fraud has not been established beyond reasonable doubt by leading any evidence by the parties pleading against adoption. Rasananda was a person capable of managing his own affairs & he was identified therein by Kalandi his brother-in-law. But when in this case the Appellant has failed to prove the giving & taking ceremony, which is a: condition precedent for establishing the factum of adoption, this deed of acknowledgement of adoption cannot itself be taken as sufficient proof to establish the said fact. In case of ancient adoption such a document plays a vital role but the said document cannot stand to establish the case of adoption in absence of required evidence proving the factum of adoption proceeded by ceremony. The document at best may provide support to the evidence of adoption otherwise established. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance in case of Shir Singh vrs. Bhaskar Malik; 1961 OJD, 191. It has been held therein that such document is to be given full weightage & that cast the onus on the party who challenges the factum of adoption. A careful reading of the said decision shows that the foundation in the said case was that of ancient adoption & in that context, it has been so held. The case in hand thus has the Basic distinguishing feature that it's not a case of ancient adoption. Thus I find that said dicta does not come to the aid of the Appellant. Next, coming to the other evidence, it is seen that the Appellant has stated that Rasananda got him married & met all expenses for the same & after his marriage, he with his wife stayed in the house of Rasananda. But further evidence in that regard is wanting as regards performance of the role of Karta by Rasananda. However, the fact remains that the father's name of the Appellant was not changed in educational records including matriculation certificate. He has further stated that till 1965, there was no attempt to change the father's name & to record that aspect of adoption. This creates genuine doubt as regards the performance of adoption ceremony. In the deed of acknowledgement of adoption, the date of adoption has not been indicated. The voter list Exts. He has further stated that till 1965, there was no attempt to change the father's name & to record that aspect of adoption. This creates genuine doubt as regards the performance of adoption ceremony. In the deed of acknowledgement of adoption, the date of adoption has not been indicated. The voter list Exts. A/2 & A/1 of the year 1970 & 1973 respectively show the name of natural father of the Appellant & not the adoptive father & both are of Kotapur which rather militate against the case of adoption. Some documents of course have been proved from the side of the Appellant, such as, Ext. 7 report of the Co-operative Bank of the year 1966, containing the signature of Rasananda wherein the Appellant has been described as his son. Another document is Ext. 13 wherein Rasananda signature is there & in that letter addressed to the authority for verification of gun, it is stated that the Appellant being the sori would be going. No such evidence, however; is there to show that these writings have been made by Rasananda consciously. Another important fact standing against the factum of adoption is that even after the so called adoption, the Appellant continued to read in Kotapur school & not Lahada where Rasananda was residing which rather leads to infer that after even the so called adoption the Appellant was residing with his natural parent & reading there. Similarly, not a scrap of paper has been filed & proved from the side of the Appellant to show that since the year of adoption as set up, he had no connection with the properties of his natural parents, though the Appellant was under obligation to prove & that would have been the clinching evidence. So the Appellant has to share the blame for nonproduction of the best evidence & thus it calls for drawal of adverse inference. This Appellant's surname nor the name of his father has been changed in any of the records of the educational institutions. No such record has been filed & proved showing that his father's name has been so indicated as Rasananda. The service records are also not placed. 15. In view of above also adverse inference has to be drawn against the case of adoption that had all these documents been placed, those would have gone against the case of adoption of the Appellant as pleaded. The service records are also not placed. 15. In view of above also adverse inference has to be drawn against the case of adoption that had all these documents been placed, those would have gone against the case of adoption of the Appellant as pleaded. All these evidence having been cumulatively viewed, this Court thus subscribes with the view of the Trial Court that appears to have been arrived at after vivid discussion of the evidence both documentary & oral ultimately answering the issue of adoption against the Appellant. Even this Court on independent reappreciation of entire evidence on record as discussed in forging paras has the least hesitation in answering the issue of adoption against the Appellant. 16. For the above finding on issue No. (i) when there is neither any cross appeal nor cross objection from the side of any of the Respondents, when they rather have accepted those findings & even those are not called in question by Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents in course of hearing here, this Court does not feel that there remains any further necessity to put those findings to test in examining their correctness & legality which are also not under challenge in these appeals at the behest of Appellant. Thus, this Court while affirming the findings of the Trial Court confirms the common Judgment passed by Trial Court in disposing T.S. Nos. 59 of 1975, 81 of 1975 & 11 of 1975 by their dismissal & so also the respective decrees passed, consequent thereto. Resultantly, the above noted appeals stand dismissed & in the circumstances without cost.