JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.225 of 2014, dated 31.10.2019 by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The appellants are defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondents are plaintiff Nos.1 to 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 3. Originally plaintiff No.1 has filed suit for partition declaring that the original plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit house with separate possession as determined by preliminary decree and to pass final decree and put the plaintiff in possession. The schedule property is house bearing municipal door No.3-7-523 (old No.3-7-364) in an extent of 693.33 Square yards situated at Vavillapally locality of Karimnagar Town with boundaries. It is the case of the original plaintiff that he was adopted by Katnapally Padmaiah son of Neelakantam when the original plaintiff was 4 years old. K.Padmaiah died on 12.03.1991. The natural father of the original plaintiff is Sudarshanam, who is the elder brother of K.Padmaiah. Padmaiah and his wife Kanakamma took the original plaintiff in adoption in the presence of near relatives, which took place about 68 years back and the adoption ceremony took place in the old house of the father of K.Padmaiah situated at Boiwada, Karimnagar. In the adoption ceremony the natural parents of the original plaintiff K.Sudarshanam put the original plaintiff in the hands of K.Padmaiah and his wife K.Kanakamma. No adoption deed was executed at that time. K.Padmaiah has admitted the original plaintiff in Government Primary School at Gunj, Karimnagar when he was aged about five years, after completion of Primary Education, he was admitted in Government Middle School, Karimnagar and thereafter in Government Multi- Purpose High School, Karimnagar, where he passed his Higher Secondary Education in the year 1962. K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma adopted defendant No.1 as their daughter when she was 5 years old. Kanakamma died in the year 2010 and the schedule property is a joint family property, prayed for partition. 4. Defendant No.2 who is the son of defendant No.1 has filed his written statement that K.Padmaiah was the absolute owner of the suit house till his death i.e., 18.03.1991 and he worked as a Government Teacher, later became Head Master and retired on attaining the age of Superannuation. 4. Defendant No.2 who is the son of defendant No.1 has filed his written statement that K.Padmaiah was the absolute owner of the suit house till his death i.e., 18.03.1991 and he worked as a Government Teacher, later became Head Master and retired on attaining the age of Superannuation. Original plaintiff is the younger son of late K.Sudarshanam, who was the elder brother of K.Padmaiah. Original plaintiff was not adopted by K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma at any point of time and no documents are filed to substantiate the valid adoption. K.Padmaiah’s name was unfortunately entered in the school records of the original plaintiff, later on after coming to know about the same, K.Padmaiah wrote letter to the Head Master, Government Middle Cum High School, Karimnagar to correct the father name of the plaintiff in school records. Based on the letter of K.Padmaiah the Head Master of Middle Cum High School, Karimnagar addressed a letter to DEO, Karimnagar for correction of the father name of the plaintiff in the school records vide Letter No.245/246, dated 22.07.1959. The then DEO, Karimnagar has authorised the Head Master, Middle School, Karimnagar to correct the father name of the original plaintiff vide Letter No.23086/23088, dated 31.12.1959 which clearly shows that K.Padmaiah has not adopted the plaintiff as his son. Original plaintiff with a malafide intention got entered the name of K.Padmaiah as his father in the records in spite of knowing the fact that K.Padmaiah wrote a letter to the Head Master to correct the father’s name of the original plaintiff. K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma have adopted the defendant No.1 when she was below one year and got her educated and performed her marriage which is admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint. K.Kanakamma during her life time executed a registered will- deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 16.11.1996. Suit is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same. 5.1. Plaint is filed on 31.12.2014 and defendant No.2 has filed written statement on 20.04.2015 which was adopted by defendant No.1. 5.2. The following issues are framed by the learned Trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is adopted son of late K.Padmaiah? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property? 3. To what relief? 5.3. Plaint is filed on 31.12.2014 and defendant No.2 has filed written statement on 20.04.2015 which was adopted by defendant No.1. 5.2. The following issues are framed by the learned Trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is adopted son of late K.Padmaiah? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property? 3. To what relief? 5.3. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died in the year 2016 and his legal heirs are brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 as per orders in IA.No.361 of 2017, dated 17.01.2017. Defendants have not filed additional written statement. The learned Trial Court has recasted the issues as under: 1. Whether the first plaintiff is adopted son of late K.Padmaiah? 2. Whether the plaintiff No.1 was entitled for half share in the suit schedule property? 5.4. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidence led by the parties has decreed the suit as prayed for. 6.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Judge wrongly answered issue No.1 with regard to the adoption of the original plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that the original plaintiff was the adopted son of late K.Padmaiah and there is no proof of adoption with regard to the ceremony nor examined any witness to that effect except the interested witnesses i.e., PWs.2 and 4. PW.4 is the sister of Late plaintiff No.1, she did not depose that adoption ceremony was conducted by giving and taking. The burden lies on the original plaintiff to prove that he was adopted by K.Padmaiah nor any person is examined to substantiate the adoption. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant No.2 bequeathed the schedule property by way of registered will-deed dated 16.11.1996 under Ex.B5 prior to filing the suit, subject property is no more in the name of the appellant No.1/defendant No.1 against whom partition is claimed. 6.2. The learned Judge was not right in coming to a conclusion that original plaintiff is the adopted son of K.Padmaiah basing on Exs.A2 to A12 and failed to take into consideration Exs.B6 and B7 i.e., correspondence letters between two Head Masters, who identified the mistake of mentioning the father’s name of original plaintiff No.1 as Padmaiah instead of Sudarshanam. 6.3. The learned Judge wrongly came to a conclusion that Ex.B5 is not proved as no witnesses are examined. 6.3. The learned Judge wrongly came to a conclusion that Ex.B5 is not proved as no witnesses are examined. The authenticity of the registered will can only be challenged by way of filing a suit for cancellation of will-deed on the ground of mis-representation. Ex.B5 registered will-deed, dated 16.11.1996 indeed is not disputed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Exs.B6 and B7 are public documents and they were wrongly rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Plaintiffs have not questioned the genuiness of Exs.B6 and B7. 6.4. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 was never adopted by K.Padmaiah. The learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration Ex.B6 which refers to TC No.1020, dated 17.06.1954, wherein the name of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 father was reflecting as Sudarshanam which fact is stated by the Head Master of the School. The suit is filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 for partition after 23 years i.e., after the death of K.Padmaiah. Counsel to substantiate his contention, has relied on the following decisions in the cases of (1) Chakicherla Audilakshmamma Vs. Atmakuru Ramarao & Others , AIR 1973 Andhra Pradesh 149 , (2) Parkash Chand & Others Vs. Hans Raj & another, AIR 1994 Himachal Pradesh 144 : 1994(1) RRR 294 (3) Om Prakash (Dead) through L.Rs Vs. Shanti Devi & others , (2015) 4 SCC 601 , (4) BS Naoaraja Rao Vs. MK Krishna Rao , 1982 LAW SUIT (KAR) 271 , (5) M.Vanaja Vs. M.Sarla Devi (Dead) , (2020) 5 SCC 307 , (6) Pentakota Satyanarayana & Others Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam & Others , AIR 2005 SC 4362 , (7) Nilima Mukherjee Vs. Kanta Bhusan Ghosh , AIR 2001 SC 2725 , (8) Rahasa Pandiani (Dead) LRs & Others Vs. Gokulananda Panda & Others, AIR 1987 SC 962 , (9) Madhusudan Das Vs. Smt.Narayani Bai & Others , AIR 1983 SC 114 , (10) L. Debi Prasad (Dead) Vs. Smt.Tribeni Devi & Others , AIR 1970 SC 1286 , (11) A.Raghavamma & Others Vs. Chenchamma & Others , AIR 1964 SC 136 , (12) Lakshman Singh Kothani Vs. Smt. Rupkanwar , AIR 1961 SC 1378 , (13) Kishorilal Vs. Mr. Chaltibai , AIR 1959 SC 504 . 7. Smt.Tribeni Devi & Others , AIR 1970 SC 1286 , (11) A.Raghavamma & Others Vs. Chenchamma & Others , AIR 1964 SC 136 , (12) Lakshman Singh Kothani Vs. Smt. Rupkanwar , AIR 1961 SC 1378 , (13) Kishorilal Vs. Mr. Chaltibai , AIR 1959 SC 504 . 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Trial Court has properly rejected Exs.B6 and B7 as they are not obtained under Right to Information (RTI) Act and the mode of acquisition of these documents from the Government Office is not explained, they are in the nature of secondary evidence and the procedure to be followed is under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which has not been followed while marking the documents. Respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 is the adopted son of K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma. Kanakamma does not have any right to execute registered will in favour of appellant No.2. The evidence of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A1 to A14 proves that respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 is the adopted child of Padmaiah and Kanakamma and the Trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail coupled with the documents marked thereon. PW.4 is the natural sister of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1, who deposed about the adoption, there are no reasons to discard the evidence adduced by the respondents/plaintiffs and there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Judge. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Nayansingh Gangaramsingh Vs. Sumersingh Kewalsingh , 1951 SCC 1050 (2) Voleti Venkata Ramarao Vs. Kesaparagada Bhaskararao and others , [ AIR 1969 SC 1359 ] , (3) L.Debi Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Tribeni Devi and Others , [ 1970(1) SCC 677 ]. 8. Counsel on record have filed their written arguments in support of their contentions. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 10. Now the point for consideration is: whether the judgment passed by learned III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar in OS.No.225 of 2014, dated 31.10.2019 suffers from any perversity or illegality? 11.1 Ex.A2 (higher secondary school record) goes to show that plaintiff No.1 has studied 9 th class during the period 1956-57, 10 th class during the period 1957-58, 11 th class during the period 1958-59 and 12 th class during the period 1959-60. The name of school mentioned thereon is Government Multipurpose High School, Karimnagar. 11.1 Ex.A2 (higher secondary school record) goes to show that plaintiff No.1 has studied 9 th class during the period 1956-57, 10 th class during the period 1957-58, 11 th class during the period 1958-59 and 12 th class during the period 1959-60. The name of school mentioned thereon is Government Multipurpose High School, Karimnagar. Ex.A3 is the transfer certificate issued by Government Multipurpose High School, Karimnagar vide TC.No.953 Register No.753 for classes 9 and 10. 11.2. As per Exs.A2 and A3, the date of birth of plaintiff No.1 is 21.05.1943. 11.3. Ex.A4 is the conduct certificate of plaintiff No.1 pertaining to High School carrier dated 25.11.1960 showing that his conduct is satisfactory. Ex.A5 is the Game Certificate of plaintiff No.1 while he was a student of 12 th standard stating that he has participated in the games. Exs.A4 and A5 are issued by Government Multipurpose High School, Karimnagar. It is to be noted here that the Transfer Certificate under Ex.A3 is pertaining to class 9 and class 10 and Ex.A2 is pertaining to class 9 to class 12. Ex.A6 is the Provisional Certificate of plaintiff No.1, dated 28.10.1983. Ex.A7 is the Memorandum of Marks issued by Kakatiya University, dated 01.09.1984. Ex.A8 is the Provisional Certificate issued by Kakatiya University, Warangal, dated 25.10.1984. Ex.A9 is the certificate of eligibility issued by RDO Karimnagar, dated 17.06.1961. Ex.A10 is the BC certificate issued by Tahsildhar, Karimnagar, dated 15.06.1961. 11.4. Ex.A11 is the Secondary Grade Basic Teachers Certificate issued by Andhra Pradesh Education Department, dated 22.06.1967, whereunder plaintiff No.1 has undergone carpentry and book binding course. Ex.A12 is the voter ID card of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A13 is his Service Register. Ex.A14 is the letter issued to PW.1, dated 24.11.2015. Wherein PW.1 has sought for some information under RTI Act pertaining to plaintiff No.1 vide RTI Application dated 18.11.2015. Exs.A2 to A12 shows the father name of Plaintiff No.1 as K.Padmaiah. 12. By the date of filing the plaint, the plaintiff No.1 was aged about 72 years and was a retired teacher and as per the pleadings, K.Padmaiah died on 12.03.1991. Ex.B1 is the Death certificate of K.Padmaiah, dated 11.04.1991, issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, which shows the death as 18.03.1991 at House No.3-7-239, Bavilapally, karimngar. Ex.B1 goes to show that K.Padmaiah died on 18.03.1991 but not on 12.03.1991. 13. Ex.B1 is the Death certificate of K.Padmaiah, dated 11.04.1991, issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, which shows the death as 18.03.1991 at House No.3-7-239, Bavilapally, karimngar. Ex.B1 goes to show that K.Padmaiah died on 18.03.1991 but not on 12.03.1991. 13. Ex.B3 is the Transfer Certificate of defendant No.1 (Appellant No.1 herein), dated 20.07.1984 issued by Principal, Government Junior College Girls, Karimnagar. Her Father’s name is shown as K.Padmaiah. Ex.B4 is the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar (mutation proceedings). Ex.B5 is the registered will executed by Kanakamma on 16.11.1996 in favour of defendant No.2 (appellant No.2 herein). Ex.B6 is the letter addressed by the Head Master, Government Middle – cum - High School, Karimnagar to the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, dated 22.07.1959. Ex.B7 is the letter addressed by the District Education Officer, Karimnager, dated 31.12.1959 to the Head Master, MPHS Karimnagar. It is to be noted here that Exs.B6 and B7 copies are marked to Mr.K.Padmaiah, Head Master, Government Middle – cum - High School, Banswada, for information. 14. At the time of marking Exs.B6 and B7 through DW.2, plaintiff’s counsel has raised objection for the same. The learned Trial Court recorded the objection as “Exs.B6 and B7 are marked subject to objection that they are not certified copies and they do not contain seal of the office concerned and the said objection has to be decided during disposal of the case”. 15. Insofar as Exs.B6 and B7 the trial Court observed at Para No.14 of its judgment which reads as under: “Admittedly Exs.B6 and B7 do not contain seal of the office concerned. Ex.B6 contains date as 22.07.1959 on top and under the signature of Head Master it contains the date as 22.07.1989 and it appears like that. The Transfer Certificate referred to in Ex.B6 which allegedly contains the name of father of first plaintiff as Sudarshanam is not produced. Ex.B7 is signed by District Educational Officer and not by the District Educational Officer. Admittedly the correction as sought to be made as requested in Ex.B6 and as directed in Ex.B7 is not made and it is admitted by DW.2. The authors of Exs.B6 and B7 are not examined. Therefore, it is clear that except the self serving testimony of DW.2 there is no independent evidence to show that they were issued by the authors mentioned in them. Hence, they are not proved. The authors of Exs.B6 and B7 are not examined. Therefore, it is clear that except the self serving testimony of DW.2 there is no independent evidence to show that they were issued by the authors mentioned in them. Hence, they are not proved. Hence, the objection on behalf of the plaintiffs is sustainable one and they cannot be relied upon”. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that Exs.B6 and B7 are public documents, which are the correspondence between the two authorities and they fall under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, further they are more than 30 years old, they may not be proved by examining any person and the only requirement for proof is to consider the custody of the document from whom those documents were produced as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. 17.1. Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with pubic document, sub-clause (1) says that documents forming the acts or records of the acts, sub-clause (1)(iii) says of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the common wealth or of a foreign country. 17.2. Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act is as under: “ 90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old:- Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation – Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable”. 18.1. Ex.B6 : GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Office of the Govt., Middle-Cum High School Karimnagar. No. (245)/246 Dated: 22-7-1959 From The HEAD MASTER, Govt., Middle-Cum High School, Karimnagar. To, The District Educational Officer, KARIMNAGAR. 18.1. Ex.B6 : GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Office of the Govt., Middle-Cum High School Karimnagar. No. (245)/246 Dated: 22-7-1959 From The HEAD MASTER, Govt., Middle-Cum High School, Karimnagar. To, The District Educational Officer, KARIMNAGAR. Subject: Correction of the father’s name in T.C. of K.Neelakantam. Ref: Sir/Madam, While enclosing herewith the true copy of the application submitted by Sri.K.Padmiah, I have to state that K.Neelakantam S/o. Sri.K.Sudarshanam ex-student of this school was admitted in this school in class VI old with T.C.No.1020 dated 17/6/54 from the C.P.S. Karimnagar. In the said T.C. the father’s name was entered as K.Sudarshanam, but in the admission form in both the places of guardian and father the name of Sri.K.Padmiah was written by the student. As such the student was issued T.C. with the name of Sri.K.Padmiah only as father. In fact as per the T.C. issued from the C.P.S. Karimnagar his father’s name is K.Sudarshanam. Therefore you are requested kindly to arrange for necessary correction in the school records of Multipurpose High School, Karimnagar. The student under question as admitted in Multipurpose High School, Karimnagar with this school T.C.No.118 dated 11/6/56. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 22-7-89 (G.R.Narsiah) HEADMASTER. JMR Copy to Sri.K.Padmiah, Headmaster Middle-cum-High School, Banswada, (guardian) camp Karimnagar for information. 18.2. Ex.B7 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT, EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KARIMNAGAR DIST. No.23086/23088 Dt. 31/12/59 Sub: - CORRECTION IN THE FATHERS NAME OF K.NEELA KANTHAM EX-STUDENT OF M.S. KARIMNAGAR IN THE T.C. NO.118. Dt.11-6-1956. Please refer the T.C.No.118, Dt. 11-6-1956 issued from M.S.Karimnagar the father’s name of K.Neela Kantham Ex-Student of said School Class VI old has been mentioned K.Padmiah instead of Sri.K.Sudershanam. You are therefore requested kindly arrange to correct the father’s name as state above. Sd/- For DIST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KARIMNAGAR DIST. Waheed To The Headmaster M.P.H.S. Karimnagar. Copies to:- The Headmaster M.S.Karimnagar with reference to his letter No.245, Dt.22-7-59, for information. Copy to Sri K.Padmiah, H.M.Middle Cum High School, Banswada Dist. Nizamabad. For information. 18.3. Ex.B7 copy is sent to the Head master, M.S.Karimnagar for information which goes to show that Ex.B6 letter is signed by the Head Master on 22.07.1959. 19.1. The factum of proper custody cannot itself be the subject- matter of any presumption and it should be satisfactorily proved. Or an analysis of the provisions of Sec. 90 and its interpretation judicially, we may deduct the following propositions : 1. 19.1. The factum of proper custody cannot itself be the subject- matter of any presumption and it should be satisfactorily proved. Or an analysis of the provisions of Sec. 90 and its interpretation judicially, we may deduct the following propositions : 1. That the presumption applies to documents proved to be 30 or more years old: 2. The document must come from proper custody; 3. The presumption is discretionary and in cases where a document is exfacie suspicious, the Court may very well refuse to make the presumption and call upon the party to offer other proof forthwith; 4. The presumption can only be applied to documents which bear the signature of the writer or of witnesses and the presumption cannot be drawn in the case of unsigned or anonymous papers; and 5. The extent of presumption relates only to the signature, execution or attestation of a document that is to say, its genuineness. The drawing of the presumption does not connote the idea that the contents of the documents are true or that they have been acted upon ; 6. The presumption applies only to original documents and not on any copy thereof, certified or otherwise” : Chakicherla Audilakshmamma case, (Supra) at Para No.7. 19.2. Whenever a document purporting or proved to be thirty years old is produced from a proper custody, the Court may either to dispense with proof of the execution of the document or call for further proof in favour of the document. The discretion is left to the Court to raise or not to raise presumption in respect of a document depending upon the circumstances of each case but this discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The exercise of discretion should not only be in consonance with law and justice but also with great caution because wrong exercise of the discretion under this provision is likely to strengthen the hands of forger. In many cases, it will be most dangerous to draw presumption that the document is genuine merely because it is thirty years old according to the recitals in the document and also is produced from proper custody. Whether a document is produced from proper custody or not is a matter of judicial satisfaction and it ought to be founded on the evidence on record. Whether a document is produced from proper custody or not is a matter of judicial satisfaction and it ought to be founded on the evidence on record. The factum of proper custody cannot itself be a subject matter of any presumption and it should be satisfactorily proved : Prakashchand’s case, (supra) at Para No.12. 19.3. Om Prakash case 3 is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff therein did not make any attempt to prove the execution of the gift deed without the aid of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As none of the attesting witnesses were examined in the proceedings as required by Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 19.4. There can be no dispute about this proposition of law. But it is also necessary to bear in mind that S.90 of the Evidence Act is incorporated in the Statute for the obvious reason that it would be difficult to adduce evidence as time passes by. In due course of time, the witnesses and the attestors may die or became unable to give their evidence. It is in order to get over this difficulty that S.90 of the evidence Act is incorporated in the said act. Hence, on the same reason, it may be proper to hold that it would not be possible to adduce evidence of the persons concerned in the case of an ancient document to prove the contents and that the circumstances probabilising the contents brought on record would be sufficient to prove the contents and the fact that it was acted upon. (Vide : Banga Chandra Dhur Biswas v. Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chowdhuri , [(1917) ILR (44) Cal 186] which is followed in BS Naoaraja Rao, (Supra). 20. Applying the above propositions to the present case, have to examine whether the Trial Court was right in rejecting Exs.B6 and B7. The trial Court observed in the order that the author of Exs.B6 and B7 are not examined therefore, it is clear that except the self serving testimony of DW.2, there is no independent evidence to show that they were issued by the authorities mentioned in them. Hence, they are not proved. The trial Court observed in the order that the author of Exs.B6 and B7 are not examined therefore, it is clear that except the self serving testimony of DW.2, there is no independent evidence to show that they were issued by the authorities mentioned in them. Hence, they are not proved. The trial Court has answered that Exs.B6 and B7 do not contain the seal of the office concerned, but failed to answer the other objection of plaintiff’s counsel in respect of certified copies. 21.1. The appellants/defendants have taken a specific defense in the written statement that ‘unfortunately the name of K.Padmaiah was entered into the school records of the plaintiff No.1 and later on coming to know about the same, late K.Padmaiah wrote a letter to the then Head Master, Government Middle – cum - High School, Karimnagar, to correct the father name of plaintiff in the school records’. 21.2. Ex.B6 is the letter addressed by the Head Master, Government Middle – cum - High School, Karimnagar, to the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar, dated 22.07.1959 which clearly specifies that K.Neelakantam (plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein) S/o.K.Sudharshanam ex-student of the school was admitted in this school in Class-VI with old TC.No.1020, dated 17.06.1954 from CPS Karimnagar. In the said TC, father’s name was entered as K.Sudharshanam and requested to arrange for necessary corrections. Copy is marked to K.Padmaiah, the Head Master, Government Middle – cum - High School, Banswada, for information. 21.3. Ex.B7 is issued by the office of the District Education Officer, Karimnagar District, dated 13.12.1959 to the Head Master, MPHS Karimnagar. Ex.B7 is pertaining to correction of plaintiff No.1’s father’s name as K.Sudharshanam instead of K.Padmaiah as per T.C.118, dated 11.06.1956. The said copy is also marked to K.Padmaiah for information. Though there are no seals on Exs.B6 and B7 but the numbers are mentioned therein which are issued by the Government Officials and they fall under the Public Officers which documents are forming the acts of records of a public document. 21.4. Exs.B6 and B7 are produced by DW.2 and this Court is of the view that the said documents are in the proper custody and under the care of the person they would naturally be and it is proved to have a legitimate origin. 21.4. Exs.B6 and B7 are produced by DW.2 and this Court is of the view that the said documents are in the proper custody and under the care of the person they would naturally be and it is proved to have a legitimate origin. The Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be the handwriting of any particular person is in that persons handwriting. The learned trial Court ought to have considered Exs.B6 and B7 but has gone to an extent of saying that they are not proved and rejected them in toto. As stated supra, Exs.B6 and B7 copies are marked to K.Padmaiah for information which documents were in proper custody of the appellants and they were produced before the Court and the observations of the trial Court in respect of Exs.B6 and B7 is not in accordance with law and it is not necessary to examine the author of Exs.B6 and B7. This Court is of the view that Exs.B6 and B7 falls under public documents and they are more than 30 years old, they fall under the proposition supra. 22. It is the case of plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in the plaint is that his natural father by name K.Sudharshanam put him in the hands of late K.Padmaiah and his wife K.Kanakamma. No adoption deed was executed at that time and there is authentic proof of the fact of adoption of plaintiff No.1 by late K.Padmaiah. 23.1. M.Vanaja’s case, (supra) and Pentakota Satyanarayana’s case, (supra) are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that plaintiff No.1 was adopted when he was 4 years old i.e., prior to the 1956 Act. 23.2. Nilima Mukherjee’s case, (supra) is also not applicable to the case on hand as she did not enter the witness box to give evidence but on her behalf her son PW.1 was examined and no document for adoption was produced before the Court. The facts are distinguishable. 23.3. 23.2. Nilima Mukherjee’s case, (supra) is also not applicable to the case on hand as she did not enter the witness box to give evidence but on her behalf her son PW.1 was examined and no document for adoption was produced before the Court. The facts are distinguishable. 23.3. When the plaintiff relied on oral evidence in support of the claim that he was adopted by the adoptive father in accordance with the Hindu rites, and it is not supported by any registered document to establish that such an adoption had really and as a matter of fact taken place the Court has to act with a great deal of caution and circumspection. Be it realized that setting up a spurious adoption is not less frequent than concocting a spurious will, and equally, if not more difficult to unmask. And the Court has to be extremely alert and vigilant to guard against being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practices out of their lust for property. If there are any suspicious 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. In the case of an adoption which is not supported by a registered document or any other evidence of a clinching nature if there exist suspicious circumstances, the same must be explained to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court by the party contending that there was such an adoption. Such is the position as an adoption would divert the normal and natural course of succession vide Rahasa Pandiani’s case, (supra) (Para No.4). 23.4. A person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity : A.Raghavamma & Others Vs. Chenchamma & Others, AIR 1964 SC 136 . The evidence in proof of the adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. Nonetheless the fact of adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact : Kishorilal Vs. Mr. Chaltibai , AIR 1956 SC 504 which is followed in Madhusudan Das’s case, (supra). 23.5. Nonetheless the fact of adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact : Kishorilal Vs. Mr. Chaltibai , AIR 1956 SC 504 which is followed in Madhusudan Das’s case, (supra). 23.5. In the case of all ancient transactions, it is but natural that positive oral evidence will be lacking. Passage of time gradually wipes out such evidence. Human affairs often have to be judged on the basis of probabilities. Rendering of justice will become impossible if a particular mode of proof is insisted upon under all circumstances. In judging whether and adoption pleaded has been satisfactorily proved or not, we have to bear in mind the lapse of time between the date of the alleged adoption and the date on which the concerned party is required to adduce proof. In the case of an adoption said to have taken place years before the same is questioned, the most important evidence is likely to be that the alleged adoptive father held out the person claiming to have been adopted as his son; the latter treated the former as his father and their relations and friends treated them as father and son. There is no predetermined way of proving any fact. A fact is said to have been proved where after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists : L.Devi Prasad’s case, (supra) (Para No.10). 23.6. It is well settled that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity : A.Ragavamma’s case, (supra) (Para No.14). 23.7. The ceremony of giving and taking which is very essential for the validity of an adoption had not taken place in this case and that the plaintiff was in fact never adopted by the defendant : Lakshman Singh’s case, (supra) (Para No.11). 23.8. The performance of the marriage itself does not prove the adoption which is otherwise disproved and as a circumstance supporting the inference of adoption set up by the appellant it is holding neutral : Kishorilal’s case, (supra) (Para No.19). 24.1. 23.8. The performance of the marriage itself does not prove the adoption which is otherwise disproved and as a circumstance supporting the inference of adoption set up by the appellant it is holding neutral : Kishorilal’s case, (supra) (Para No.19). 24.1. What the Hindu law requires is the giving and taking of the boy “in adoption” and nothing more : Nayansingh Gangaramsingh’s case, (supra) (Para No.4). 24.2. The law on this point is correctly stated in Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th Ed., art. 512 page 519:- "But when there is a lapse of 55 years between the adoption and its be questioned, every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove such fact must be favourably entertained. stands to reason that after a very long term of years, and a variety of transactions of open life and conduct upon the footing that the adoption was a valid act the burden must rest heavily upon him who challenges its validity : Voleti Venkata Ramarao’s case, (supra). 24.3. There is no doubt that the burden of proving satisfactorily that he was given by his natural father and received by Gopal Das as his adoptive son is on Shyam Behari Lal. But as observed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Rajendrao Nath Holdar v. Jogendro Nath Banerjee and Others (14. Moors Indian Appeals P.67); that although the person who pleads that he had been adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son. In the case of all ancient transactions, it is but natural that positive oral evidence will be lacking. Passage of time gradually wipes out such evidence. Human affairs often have to be judged on the basis of probabilities. Rendering of justice will become impossible if a particular mode of proof is insisted upon under all circumstances. In judging whether an adoption pleaded has been satisfactorily proved or not, we have to bear in mind the lapse of time between the date of the alleged adoption and the date on which the concerned party is required to adduce proof. Rendering of justice will become impossible if a particular mode of proof is insisted upon under all circumstances. In judging whether an adoption pleaded has been satisfactorily proved or not, we have to bear in mind the lapse of time between the date of the alleged adoption and the date on which the concerned party is required to adduce proof. In the case of an adoption said to have taken place years before the same is questioned, the most important evidence is likely to be that the alleged adoptive father held out the person claiming to have been adopted as his son; the latter treated the former as his father and their relations and friends treated them as father and son. There is no predetermined way of proving any fact. A fact is said to have been proved where after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Hence if after taking an overall view of the evidence adduced in the case, we are satisfied that the adoption pleaded is true, we must necessarily proceed on the basis, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that it is a valid adoption as well : Debi Prasad’s case, (supra), (Para Nos.9 & 10). 25. Applying the above propositions to the present case, have to examine whether the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record. 26.1. The evidence of PW.1 (plaintiff No.3) is the replica of the plaint averments. In his cross examination he stated that his father has not filed any suit for partition during the life time of late K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma and he do not know whether K.Padmaiah during his life time in 1959 filed application before the Head Master concerned for correction of the name of the plaintiff No.1’s father from Padmaiah to Sudharshanam and whether it was ordered to be corrected as per the letter of the District Education Officer and he admitted that Padmaiah died on 18.03.1991 and his father was alive when defendant No.2 filed his written statement along with documents. PW.1 further stated in his cross-examination that he was aware of the documents filed by the defendants about the correction of the name of plaintiff No.1’s father in the school records. A question is put to PW.1 that appellant No.1/defendant No.1 was adopted by Padmaiah and Kanakamma and she is the surviving legal heir. The answer given by PW.1 is that his father is also adopted along with her. 26.2. PW2 is the wife of deceased plaintiff No.1, her evidence is that after the marriage she lived with her husband in the house of Padmaiah and that her first and second sons were born in the house of Padmaiah and they have also performed cradle ceremony, her husband Nilakantam has performed funeral and karma of late Padmaiah and subsequently, plaintiff No.1 constructed a house at Kotirampur locality at Karimnagar town and they started residing there at. In her cross examination she has stated that her husband was taken adoption in the first instance and later on defendant No.1 was adopted. 26.3. The evidence of PW.3 is to the extent that himself and plaintiff No.1 have worked in Educational Department and himself and other co-teachers know that the plaintiff No.1 is the adopted son of Padmaiah and that in all the school records the name of the Padmaiah was recorded as the father of Nilakantam. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that Padmaiah has adopted only appellant No.1/D1 and not any other person, witness adds that Padmaiah has adopted Nilakantam first. He also denied the suggestion that the District Educational Officer on the application of Padmaiah ordered correction of the School records of Nilakantam stating that there was mistake in the same regarding the name of his father as Padmaiah. 26.4. PW.4 is the own sister of plaintiff No.1, she deposed that Padmaiah and Kanakamma had no issues thereby they adopted his brother (plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein) when he was four years old. Plaintiff No.1 was given in adoption to K.Padmaiah and later he admitted the plaintiff No.1 at primary school and recorded his name as the father of Nilakantam. Deceased Padmaiah got Nilakantam educated and performed his marriage, she and another relatives have attended the same and Padmaiah has performed the cradle ceremonies of first and second son of plaintiff No.1 and that plaintiff No.1 has performed the funerals and karma of late Padmaiah. Deceased Padmaiah got Nilakantam educated and performed his marriage, she and another relatives have attended the same and Padmaiah has performed the cradle ceremonies of first and second son of plaintiff No.1 and that plaintiff No.1 has performed the funerals and karma of late Padmaiah. All the relatives treated the deceased plaintiff No.1 as the adopted son of K.Padmaiah. In her cross examination she stated that plaintiff No.1 has not filed any suit against Padmaiah and Kanakamma during their life time claiming that he was the adopted son and that she do not know whether Padmaiah during his life time in 1959 filed application before the Head Master concerned for correction of the name of the father of the plaintiff No.1 in the records from Padmaiah to Sudharshanam and whether it was ordered to be corrected as per the letter of the District Educational Officer and that she do not know whether appellant No.1/defendant No.1 is brought up in the house of Padmaiah and Kanakamma and that her marriage was performed. 27.1. The evidence of DW.1/appellant No.1 herein is the replica of the written statement. In her cross-examination, she admitted that K.Nilakantam/plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein (since deceased is the son of Sudarshanam). She denied the suggestion that Padmaiah has performed the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and got him educated. DW.1 has further stated in her cross-examination that plaintiff No.1 is not adopted at any point of time by Padmaiah and his wife. She denied the suggestion that plaintiff No.1 has performed the last rites of Padmaiah. 27.2. The evidence of DW.2 is in the lines of DW.1. In his cross- examination he admitted that Padmaiah name is shown as father of plaintiff No.1 in school records, college records and office records and correction is not carried out as Sudershanam from Padmaiah in respect of father’s name of plaintiff No.1 as per Exs.B6 and B7. 28. On perusal of Ex.B5, it is mentioned therein that defendant No.1 (appellant No.1 herein) is the adopted daughter. No where in Ex.B5 it is stated that plaintiff No.1 is the adopted son of K.Padmaiah and that of the executant of the document. 29. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the plaintiff No.1 is the adopted son of K.Padmaiah. 30. The age of PW.4 is shown as 78 years by the date of filing the affidavit i.e., 11.06.2019. 31. 29. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the plaintiff No.1 is the adopted son of K.Padmaiah. 30. The age of PW.4 is shown as 78 years by the date of filing the affidavit i.e., 11.06.2019. 31. It is the case of the plaintiff No.1 that he was 4 years old at the time of the alleged adoption and that PW.4 might have been 6 years old, moreover, she has not deposed about the ceremonies that the natural parents of the plaintiff No.1 put the child in the hands of K.Padmaiah and his wife Kanakamma. Except the evidence of PW.4, there is no other evidence placed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein to show that plaintiff No.1 was the adopted son of late Padmaiah. The evidence of PW.4 is not much helpful to the case of the plaintiffs in view of the fact that she has not deposed about the giving and taking of the child (plaintiff No.1). 32. It is the further case of the plaintiff No.1 in the plaint that K.Padmaiah has admitted him in Government Primary School, Karimnagar when he was aged about 5 years and thereafter in Government Middle School, Karimnagar. Plaintiffs have not filed any record to show that the father’s name of plaintiff No.1 is Padmaiah at the time of his joining in Government Primary School at Gunj, Karimnagar or in Government Middle School, Karimnagar. Exs.A2 to A5 are High School Certificates. 33.1. It is not the case of the plaintiff No.1 in the plaint that after the marriage he resided with Padmaiah along with his wife and that his two children were born and that the plaintiff No.1 has performed the ceremony of late Padmaiah. There is no pleading with regard to the same but PW.2 has gone to an extent of deposing that after the marriage with her husband she resided in the house of Padmaiah and that she gave birth to her two children. PW.4 has also deposed about the same. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 are beyond the pleadings in respect of the above evidence. 33.2. Plaintiffs have withheld the best documents with them (i.e., Primary School and Middle School Certificates) and they only relied on Exs.A2 to A12. PW.4 has also deposed about the same. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 are beyond the pleadings in respect of the above evidence. 33.2. Plaintiffs have withheld the best documents with them (i.e., Primary School and Middle School Certificates) and they only relied on Exs.A2 to A12. The findings of the trial Court that plaintiff No.1 is the adopted son of K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma is not in proper prospective and failed to analyse the evidence led by the parties. There is no explanation from the plaintiff No.1 what made him to file the suit for partition at the age of 75 years nor he made any efforts to file the same during the life time of K.Padmaiah and K.Kanakamma. As stated supra, by the date of filing written statement by the defendants they also filed the documents (i.e., Exs.B6 and B7) showing that during the life time of K.Padmaiah he made an application to the concerned authorities for change of name of the plaintiff’s No.1 father’s name from Padmaiah to Sudarshanam. 34. There is no positive evidence led by the plaintiffs to prove that plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein was adopted by late K.Padmaiah. Though it is averred in the plaint that natural father of plaintiff No.1 by name K.Sudarshanam put his son in the hands of K.Padmaiah and his wife K.Kanakamma which fact is not proved by the plaintiffs through proper evidence. 35. The learned trial Court wrongly appreciated the evidence on record. Exs.B6 and B7 goes to the root of the matter which clearly speaks that the father’s name of plaintiff No.1 is Sudarshanam in the earlier school records. Plaintiffs have failed to prove the adoption. 36. Since the adoption itself is not proved, the question of partition of the suit house into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5/respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein is perverse and is not in accordance with law. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record coupled with the exhibits marked thereon. This Court is of the view that the findings of the trial Court required to be interfered with in view of the reasons stated supra. 37. In the result, appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar in O.S.No.225 of 2014, dated 31.10.2019 is set aside. This Court is of the view that the findings of the trial Court required to be interfered with in view of the reasons stated supra. 37. In the result, appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar in O.S.No.225 of 2014, dated 31.10.2019 is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.