- (1.)THE defendants 1 & 2 in O.S.No.123 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ranipet, are the appellants in the above appeal. For the sack of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.
(2.)THE case of the plaintiff as putforth in the plaint is as follows:- THE plaintiff is the son of one Ganesan and Thilakam @ Thilajkavathi. THE 'A' schedule property and other properties were owned and possessed by the plaintiff's father till his death i.e., on 7.5.1986. THE plaintiff's mother died on 02.12.1978. THE plaintiff has succeeded to the 'A' schedule property as the sole legal heir of the deceased Ganesan. THE plaintiff is being taken care of by his maternal aunt Dr. Vimala Saminthan, the next friend. While alive, the plaintiff's father Ganesan had taken safety locker with the 3rd and/or 4th defendant Bank and has kept his valuables therein. THE second defendant is the daughter of the another sister of the plaintiff's mother and she has no manner of right over the 'A' schedule property. THE first defendant is the husband of the second defendant. THE second defendant has been putforth by the first defendant as adopted daughter of Ganesan. But, the second defendant is not the adopted daughter and she was not taken in adoption by the Ganesan. THE second defendant was only taken care of by the plaintiff's father and mother as she was an orphan. THE defendants 1 & 2 do not have any right over the 'A' schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant in her letter dated 10.08.1986 written to Dr. Vimalasaminathan, sent in response to a lawyer notice, dated 31.07.1986, had admitted that she was only brought up by Ganesan and his wife and the properties of Ganesan will go only to the plaintiff. THE first defendant by fraudulent means was claiming right to the suit property by obtaining legal heir certificate. Since the first defendant is attempting to get the contents of the locker of the 3rd and/or 4th defendant-Banks, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 31.07.1986 to the third defendant not to allow the first an second defendants to open the locker. THE 3rd and/or 4th defendant are not permitting the plaintiff also to open the locker and they are insisting the plaintiff for production of succession certificate. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 & 2 have trespassed into the 'A' Schedule property after the death of the plaintiff's father. Hence, the suit has been filed for declaration of the plaintiff's right over the suit schedule property and for other reliefs.
The first defendant has filed a written statement, which has been adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 have denied the allegations contained in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 & 2 that the second defendant is the adopted daughter of the deceased Ganesan and Ganesan died intestate leaving behind his minor son, the plaintiff, and the second defendant as his legal heirs to his estate. Therefore, the second defendant is entitled to an equal share in the suit property. The suit has been filed only at the instance of the next friend. The letter referred in para 7 of the plaint is a fabricated one. The second defendant never tried to open the Bank locker, but the next friend attempted to open the Bank locker and having failed in her attempt, caused the filing of the suit. The allegations that the defendants 1 & 2 have trespassed into the 'A' schedule house is denied and it is stated that the second defendant is living in the house as the daughter of Ganesan. The first defendant, as the husband of the second defendant, is also living with her in the same house. On the above pleadings the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

An additional written statement has also been filed by the first defendant contending that the plaintiff is not the sole legal heir of the deceased Ganesan and the second defendant is entitled to half share and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule mentioned properties and the second defendant is entitled to a share in the same.

The fourth defendant has filed a written statement contending that the fourth defendant is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. It is stated in the written statement that the deceased Ganesan hired a safety locker in the Indian Bank, Arcot Branch (previously Bank of Tanjore Ltd.,) and the fourth defendant was not aware of the rest of the plaint averments. Further, since there is a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, the fourth defendant was not able to permit any of them to open the safety locker and however, he is prepared to abide by the decree that may be passed in the suit.

The trial Court framed the follows issues:- a) Whether the plaintiff alone is entitled to 'A' schedule property? b) Whether the second defendant is the adopted daughter of Ganesan? c) Whether Defendants 1 & 2 have trespassed into the property as claimed by the plaintiff? d) Whether the second defendant has got any right? e) Whether the plaintiff should have filed the suit after obtaining the legal heir certificate? f) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for in the suit? g) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

(3.)DURING the trial, Dr. Vimala Saminthan, the next friend, has been examined as P.W.1 and on the side of the plaintiff Ex.As.1 to 14 have been marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses have been examined and Ex.Bs.1 to 12 have been marked.
The trial Court on a careful consideration of the evidence on record, decreed the suit as prayed for. Being aggrieved by that, the defendants have filed the above appeal.

Heard the learned counsel on either side. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 & 2 submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the various documents especially Ex.Bs.5 to 7, wherein the second defendant/2nd appellant herein has been described as daughter of the deceased Ganesan. The learned counsel further submitted that Ex.Bs.8 to 10 clearly shows that the second defendant/2nd appellant herein has been shown as the daughter of Ganesan and similarly, in Ex.B.1-ration card the second defendant/2nd appellant herein has been shown as the daughter of Ganesan. The learned counsel submitted that when there is enough documentary evidence to show that the second defendant/2nd appellant herein was treated by deceased Ganesan as his daughter, the Court below should have accepted the plea of the defendants 1 & 2 that the second defendant is the adopted daughter of Ganesan. The learned counsel further submitted that though the requirements of Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not satisfied in this case, the fact that the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that the second defendant was taken care of by Ganesan and his wife as the second defendant was an orphan, coupled with the other documentary evidences available on record, will show that the second defendant was adopted as the daughter of Ganesan. The learned counsel further submitted that the actual giving and taking of the second defendant by the natural parents and adoptive parents is not mandatory.