IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 SA.No. 834 of 2000(H) -------------------------------- AS.251/1992 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.118/1989 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------------- SIVADAS, AGED 34, S/O.ARUKUTTY, MADATHODIYIL, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JANU, AGED 65, W/O.ARUKUTTY,MADATHODIYIL, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD 2. KERALA GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 5. TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD. BY THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- S.A.No. 834 of 2000 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Undaunted by the concurrent findings against him, the plaintiff in O.S.No.118/1989 before the Sub Court, Palakkad has come up in second appeal before this court. 2. Under the ceiling proceedings against the first respondent certain items of property were surrendered to the Government. The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of the first respondent herein and so he is entitled to share in the property and therefore, order passed by the Taluk Land Board is not binding on the plaintiff. So, seeking a declaration that he is the co-owner of the plaint schedule property, the suit was laid. 3. The first defendant remained exparte. The other defendants resisted the suit by pointing out that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 125 of the K.L.R.Act. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the above pleadings, issues were raised before the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 to 3. The trial court found that in view of Section 125 of the K.L.R. Act, the suit is not maintainable and also there was no evidence to show that the S.A.No. 834 of 1998 2 plaintiff is the adopted son of the first defendant. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 5. Plaintiff carried the matter in Appeal as A.S.251/1992 before the District Court, Palakkad. The lower appellate court independently considered the materials before it and came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence to prove that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the first defendant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Hence the second appeal. 6. Notice has been issued on the following substantial questions of law: A. Did not the courts below err in ignoring the case of 5th defendant as borne out from such solitary written statement and which practically did not challenge the fact of adoption ? B. Were the courts below justified in placing the entire burden of proof on the plaintiff alone in the nature of pleadings in this suit? C. Did not the courts below go wrong in not finding that there is no particular mode or procedure for adoption ? S.A.No. 834 of 1998 3 D. Were the courts below justified in overlooking strong circumstances and broad probabilities in favour of the plaintiff's case ? E. Did not the courts grievously err in dismissing the suit entirely ? 7. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the court below was not justified in discarding the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, which would clearly show that he was the adopted son of the first defendant. It is also pointed out that petition was filed before this court as C.M.P.No.2167/2000 to direct the 5th respondent, the Taluk Land Board, Palakkad to produce the adoption deed dated 09.11.1963 executed by M. Chamiyar and Arukutty. 8. According to the learned counsel, all the requirements of a valid adoption have been satisfied and the plaintiff has severed all his tie with his original family. 9. The plaintiff in the suit says that he was the adopted son of the defendant and her husband. Of course, three witnesses have been examined including the biological mother. But, no documents what- so-ever have been produced to show that he was adopted by the first defendant and her husband. None of the records like electoral card, ration card and school admission register etc. was produced either S.A.No. 834 of 1998 4 before the trial court or before the lower appellate court. There is no documents to show that there was a valid adoption as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a case that the adoption is evidenced by documents. Moreover the adoptive mother neither contested nor confirmed the claim of adoption made by the plaintiff. Both the courts below have considered the matter in detail and has come to the conclusion that there is no proof of adoption. Hence, the courts below dismissed the suit and appeal. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln