1. These Appellant in filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgments and decrees judgment and decree dated 10.05.2019 and 16.05.2019 respectively passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Balasore in RFA No.267 of 2019 (95 of 2016).

By the same, the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) under Section-96 of the Code has been allowed and thereby, the judgments and decrees judgment and decree dated 10.05.2019 and 16.05.2019 respectively passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Balasore in RFA No.267 of 2019 (95 of 2016) have been set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. Plaintiff’s case is that one Baidi Rout died prior to the year 1920 leaving his one son namely, Siba. That Siba died sometime in the year, 1943 leaving behind his only son Gangadhar. It is stated that Siba had no other brother and he was the only son of Baidi. Gangadhar had first married to one Sabitri, she died leaving no issue. Thereafter he married to Mani. Gangadhar and Mani did not beget any child. Thus, while leading lonely life, they requested one Narendra to come and stay with them. Accepting the request, Narendra with his wife came and stayed in their house. Narendra who was a landless person stayed with them all along. During Narendra’s stay with his wife Makhamani in the house to Gangadhar, they begot six children; five daughters and a son. Plaintiff is the son of Gangadhar. He was born in April, 1978. Gangadhar and his wife Mani then requested Narendra and his wife to give the Plaintiff in adoption as they were interested to take the Plaintiff on adoption. Accordingly, Narendra and his wife keeping in view the said request, agreed to the proposal. On the eve of Car Festival of the year, 1978 Gangadhar and Mani took the Plaintiff on adoption. Puja had been held and there was giving and taking ceremony for the said adoption. The natural parents handed over the Plaintiff to the adoptive parents who accepted the child. The adoption took place when Plaintiff was two to three months old. At the age of five to six, the Plaintiff was admitted in the Primary School by adoptive father and continued to study. He passed Matriculation in the year, 1994. Gangadhar died on 28.12.1998 at the age of 74 years leaving his wife Mani and the Plaintiff as his successors. He also claimed that on the death of Gangadhar, he being the son of Gangadhar performed all the funeral ceremony and the obsequies. After the death of Gangadhar, Plaintiff with his mother Mani remained in possession of all the properties left by Gangadhar as described in Schedule-A of the plaint. They were also living together in the same house. Mani died on 17.07.2006. The Plaintiff being her son again performed her funeral ceremonies as well as obsequies. He is performing the annual Shradha of Gangadhar and Mani. The property described in Schedule-B of the property is the self-acquired property of Mani. This Plaintiff thus claim that he is the owner of Schedule-A and B properties.

It is alleged that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who are permanent residents of another village have no relationship with Gangadhar, Siba or Baidi. They are neither agnate now cognate to Gangadhar, Siba or Baidi. It is stated that after the death of Mani, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 claiming themselves to be the nephew of Gangadhar attempted to dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit land. But they failed in the attempt. Thereafter, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 styling themselves as the nephew of Gangadhar and Mani sold Act.0.65 decimals of land in favour of Defendant No.4 by registered sale-deed dated 31.07.2006. The Defendant No.5 even though belongs to the family of Gangadhar, he is too neither the agnate nor cognate of Gangadhar. He being set up by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 having no manner of right, title, interest and possession over Schedule-A and B land has been so impleaded in the suit. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 who are completely strangers to the family of Gangadhar and Mani having no right over the property left by them again alienated by way of gift, the Schedule-A land by registered sale-deed dated 29.07.2009 in favour of Defendant No.7, the Deity represented by its Marfatdar. The Defendant No.1 also without any right, title and interest sold Ac.0.20 decimals of land to Defendant No.6 by registered sale-deed dated 01.11.2008. Then again the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have sold some land in favour of Defendant No.4 by registered sale-deed dated 28.11.2008. All these above have been reflected in Schedule-E to F of the plaint. The Plaintiff challenges all these alienations as void and illegal. He therefore, filed the suit after having come to know about alienation to have been continuously made. In the suit, the prayer is to declare the Plaintiff to be the right, title and interest holder of Schedule-A and B land and his possession. It is further prayed with the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 be declared as strangers and imposters having no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land with further prayer to declare all these sale-deeds and gift deed as null and void.

4. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in their written statement have specifically pleaded that Dinabandhu Rout had two sons namely, Bhajan and Baidi. Bhajan died leaving behind his son Madhu. Said Madhu died on 26.12.1973. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of Madhu. It is stated that Gangadhar is the son of Siba and grandson of Baidi. According to them, Gangadhar died on 28.12.1998 leaving no issue and Mani, the wife of Gangadhar died after the death of Gangadhar. Thus, these Defendants claimed to be the nephew of Gangadhar and as Gangadhar and Mani left behind no issue, they claim to have succeeded to the properties in Schedule-A and B.

The Plaintiff’s claim that he is the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani is denied. They have stated that the natural father of the Plaintiff being a clever and shrewd person had manipulated all these records such as the school admission register etc. without the knowledge of Gangadhar and his wife Mani. They having come to know about this entry in the school admission register had written a letter to the Defendant No.3 on 25.05.1990. Then they had a talk with the District Inspector of Schools to sort out the problem. Pursuant to the same, Narendra had filed an application and affidavit for correction of the mistake. They further state that the father of the Plaintiff had purchased land from Mani on 01.03.2006 and in that sale-deed, Mani had stated that she is the only successor of Gangadhar. Narendra has also sold some lands to Gangan Bihari which he had purchased from Mani and the Plaintiff is a signatory to the said sale-deed as a witness. Mani had also sold to some land to Chakradhar, who is the son-in-law of Narendra and she has written there to be the sole successor of Gangadhar. These Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 claim that after death of Gangadhar and Mani, they had performed funeral ceremony and obsequies and have been performing the annual Shradha ceremony. They admit to have sold the properties and also to have gifted the properties.

5. The Defendant No. 5 in his written statement has admitted the claim of the Plaintiff to the extent that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in no way related to Gangadhar and Mani. He however, denies the status of Plaintiff as the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani. This Defendant No.5 claims that he was residing with Gangadhar from his childhood days and he is in possession of all his properties.

It is stated that one Hari Rout had two sons namely, Baidi, Jhampuda. Baidi died leaving behind his only son Siba, who died subsequently leaving Gangadhar behind his only son Gangadhar. He stated that Gangadhar and his wife died issueless and Jhampuda died leaving behind his only son Atanga, who died leaving behind his son Nanda and Nanda died leaving behind this Defendant No.5 and one Kartika who is dead. As Gangadhar and Mani died issueless, this Defendant No. 5 thus claims his entitlement to the property of Gangadhar and Mani.

6. On the above rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed in total nine(9) issues. First of all taking up issue nos. 3 and 5 with regard to the status claimed by the Plaintiff and his assertion that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are strangers and imposters to the Gangadhar and Mani; upon examination of evidence and their evaluation, has returned the finding that the Plaintiff has not satisfactorily proved his case that he is adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani. It has then said that in view of said finding, there cannot be any declaration that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are impostors to the family of Gangadhar and Mani. The suit having thus been dismissed, the unsuccessful Plaintiff had carried the First Appeal. The First Appellate Court upon detail examination of evidence and their evaluation at its level has reversed the said finding of the Trial Court and has decreed the suit granting the Plaintiff all the reliefs which he claimed. The Plaintiff has been held to be the adopted son of Gangadhar. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

7. Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants (Defendant Nos. 1 to 3) submitted that when the Trial Court after detail discussion of evidence and taking into account their weightage in the eye of law had rightly held the Plaintiff to have failed to establish his claim that he is the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani, the First Appellate Court erroneously by way of unjust and improper appreciation of evidence has erred in holding to the contrary in favour of the case/claim of the Plaintiff. He submitted that for the purpose of success in the suit, the heavy burden of proof which lies on the Plaintiff to establish his case that he is the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani, has not been discharged in as much as the evidence let in from his side are not at all sufficient to record a finding in favour of the Plaintiff on that score when the evidence let in by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 go to negate the claim/case of the Plaintiff. It was submitted that for the purpose, the First Appellate Court has not taken into account the evidentiary value of the voter lists i.e. Exts. 17 to 19, the saleexecuted by Mani; and other such evidence which stand against the claim of the Plaintiff. It was also submitted that the evidence with regard to the proof of giving and taking being wholly deficient, the First Appellate Court ought not to have held that the heavy burden of proof lying on the Plaintiff in establishing the fact that he was duly adopted by Gangadhar and his wife Mani and as such is their adopted son has been discharged; moreso when on the face of the evidence let in by the Plaintiff which further creates doubt over that claim/case of the Plaintiff. He, therefore, urged for admission of this Appeal to answer the above as the substantial questions of law.

8. Mr. B. Baug, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) submitted that here is a case where the unjust and improper appreciation of evidence as had been made by the Trial Court in returning the finding on the core issue against the case/claim of the Plaintiff has been rectified by the First Appellate Court by recording a finding to the contrary by just and proper appreciation of evidence by assigning good reasons touching every point as indicated by the Trial Court in saying differently which are absolutely reasonable. According to him, such finding of fact returned by the First Appellate Court, when does not suffer from the vice of perversity, there arises no substantial questions of law to be answered in this Appeal by admitting the same.

He next submitted that the finding of the First Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence and their detail assessment is that the Defendant nos. 1 to 3 are strangers and imposters to Gangadhar and Mani and therefore, on the face of the evidence on record in support of the case/claim of the Plaintiff, the challenge to the same at their behest has been rightly held to be not entertainable.

9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the pleadings and have extensively travelled through the evidence on record being placed during hearing.

10. Plaintiff asserts to be the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani, which is disputed from the side of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who are the Appellants in this Second Appeal; when none other Defendants have preferred any Appeal questioning the finding of the First Appellate Court that Plaintiff is the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani.

It may be stated at this place that at the initial stage of the suit, with the Plaintiff’s case that he is the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in their pleading have denied the said factum of adoption of the Plaintiff by Gangadhar and Mani. In respect of their own claim over the property of Gangadhar and Mani, while stating that the Plaintiff is no way related to them, it is their case that one Dinabandhu had two sons namely, Bhajan and Baidi and that Bhajan died leaving behind his only son Rama who subsequently died leaving behind his only son Madhu, who died on 26.12.1973. These Defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim to be the successors of Madhu. It is also asserted by them that said Gangadhar is the son of Siba and grandson of Baidanath @ Baidi, who died on 28.12.1998 leaving no issue. It is stated by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that Gangadhar had two wives namely, Sabitri and Mani and Sabitri pre-deceased Gangadhar whereas Mani died after death of Gangadhar. Accordingly, they claim that being the nephews of Gangadhar, they (Defendant Nos. 1 to 3) have inherited the properties left by Gangadhar and Mani.

It be further stated here that the Defendant No. 5-Mahendra Rout having died during suit, his legal representatives have come on record as Defendant Nos. 5(a) to 5(d). The Defendant No.5 in the written statement while admitting the claim of the Plaintiff to the effect that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in no way related to Gangadhar and Mani, in respect of the claim of the Plaintiff as the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani, the stand taken is of denial. It has been projected the case that one Hari Rout had two sons namely, Baidi and Jhumpuda. Baidi died leaving behind only son Siba, who subsequently died leaving behind Gangadhar as his only son. It is also stated by Defendant No.5 in the written statement that Gangadhar and his wife died issueless. His further case is that Jhumpuda Rout died leaving behind his only son Atanga, who died leaving behind his son Nanda. This Defendant No.5 states to be the only son of Nanda; whereas other son of Nanda i.e. Kartika Rout is dead.

However, the legal representatives of Defendant No.5, during the Trial have not contested the claim of the Plaintiff as the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani. They being arraigned in the suit did not also stake their claim over the suit properties, in any manner whatsoever.

The Defendant No.4, however, without joining with the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 has laid separate set of evidence. Although his written statement was at par with the written statement of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, during evidence, he while stating that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the agnatic nephews of Gangadhar, has totally accepted the claim of the Plaintiff to be the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani and other witnesses i.e. D.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have also followed the same path. The Defendant No. 5’s branch having led the evidence by examining three witnesses have also supported the case of the Plaintiff.

11. The Trial Court on examination of evidence and their evaluation has finally come to a conclusion that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to prove that they are in any way related to Gangadhar and Mani. It having then further proceeded to render the decision on the claim of the Plaintiff to be the adopted son of Gangadhar and Mani, the answer upon examination of evidence and their evaluation at its level is in the negative and against the Plaintiff. So, the Plaintiff’s suit being dismissed and he being non-suited, had carried the First Appeal.

12. The First Appellate Court has finally affirmed that finding of the Trial Court that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in no way related to Gangadhar and Mani. But then, the answer of the First Appellate Court on the point of adoption being given in favour of the Plaintiff, now this Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

13. The Trial Court had found the evidence of D.W.1 in support of the claim of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that they are the nephews of Gangadhar to have been rendered in a confused manner especially as to their common ancestor and he is found to have not disclosed as regards the source of knowledge from which he came to know about the genealogy and to have given a new story taking a turn from the pleading of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by stating that Madhusudan was permanent resident of village Sunarohi and shifted to Sartha prior to 20/25 years of his death. The Trial Court in this connection has also discussed other evidence of D.W.s. 1 and 6 in saying that the same is not convincing. Then having examined the evidence of D.W.9, D.W.8, D.W.7 and D.W.4, the conclusion has been that they have failed to withstand the cross-examination in favour of acceptance of their evidence.

The Trial Court on detail examination of evidence of D.W.1 (Defendant No.1) has held the same on the above score is not worthy of credence. In this way, the Trial Court has proceeded to examine the evidence of other witnesses who during their cross-examination have been completely fallen flat on their stand which they had taken in their evidence-in-chief. Thus, the Trial Court has held that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 has failed to prove that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in any way related to Gangadhar and Mani.

14. Before the First Appellate Court, said finding had not been challenged by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by filing any Cross-Objection or Cross-Appeal. The First Appellate Court having gone through the discussion of evidence let in by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with reference to the discussion made by the Trial Court in its judgment at para-8 has found no such justifiable reason to take a view contrary to what had been taken by the Trial Court in favour of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Accordingly, on that question, the First Appellate Court has refused to interfere with the said finding standing against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in so far as their relationship with Gangadhar and Mani is concerned. Thus, the Courts below have concurrently found the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to be the stranger to the family of Gangadhar and Mani.

On going through the evidence of all the above witnesses as pointed out, this Court finds that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in no way related to Gangadhar and Mani does not at all suffer from the vice of perversity. Therefore, that finding is not liable to be interfered with in seisin of the Appeal under Section-100 of the Code within its scope and ambit.

15. Having said above, now question comes up that when these Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to prove their case that they are in any way related to Gangadhar and Mani if can still question the finding of adoption of the Plaintiff by Gangadhar and Mani and as such his status as their adopted son, which the First Appellate Court has rendered on examination of evidence both oral and documentary at length and their evaluation from every possible angles in culling out the weight of the same.

16. In case of M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. Vrs. His Highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo of Maihar and Others; AIR (1975) SC 1810 [LQ/SC/1975/256] ; it has been held that a complete stranger, whose interest is not affected by another’s legal character or who has no interest in another property would not get a declaration under section42 of the Specific Relief Act with reference to the legal character of that person or the property so moving upon that.

17. In case of Tapadhyan Negi Vrs. Radhika Negi & Another; AIR 2017 Orissa 180, in suit for declaration that the Defendant No.2 is not the adopted son of Defendant No.1, at the instance of the Plaintiff therein, this Court having found the Plaintiff to be a stranger to the family of Defendant No.1 has held the suit for declaration that the Defendant No.2 is not the adopted son of Defendant No.1 is not maintainable. The Plaintiff therein having failed to prove that he was the adopted son of one Urmila and thus having been found to be a stranger to the family, it has been held that he cannot challenge the adoption of Defendant No.2 by Defendant No.1.

18. In case of Veerabhadrayya R. Hiremath (Dead) by L.Rs. Vrs. Irayya A. F. Basayya Hiremath; 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 655, while dealing with the suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to declare the adoption of the Defendant by one Basayya as null and void and not binding upon the Plaintiff, the Court has gone to say that in the normal circumstances, adoption can be challenged either by the natural parents of the boy or by the adoptive parents or by the child who have been given in adoption. As in that case, the Plaintiff was a stranger to the Defendant, no cause of action was found to be there in favour of the Plaintiff to file the said suit in claiming the reliefs.

19. Testing facts and circumstances of the given case with reference to the finding as those now stand after the decisions rendered in the First Appeal, on the anvil of the aforesaid principles as noted, this Court is of the considered view that the Second Appeal at the instance of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 when they have already been found to be strangers to the family of Gangadhar and no way related to Gangadhar and Mani, to question the finding of adoption returned in favour of the Plaintiff is liable to fail.

For all the aforesaid discussion and reasons; this Court finds that there surfaces no substantial question of law to be answered in this Appeal, meriting its admission.

20. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. There shall however be no order as to cost.