Respondent No.
Thereupon original defendant No.
The defendants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court, but it was dismissed in limine.
1 resisted the suit and finally denied that she had taken Gokulananda Panda in adoption as alleged.
The suit was instituted because she had alienated some of the properties in favour of appellants 2 to 8 and had made a will in favour of the deity bequeathing the rest of the properties on the premise that there was numbersuch adoption and she was free to deal with the properties of her deceased husband.
Defendant No.
1 Rahasa on March 22, 1956.
1 Rahasa Pandiani approached this Court by way of the present appeal by special leave.
1 , widow of Lakshminarayana Panda had adopted one Gangapani, the son of the sister of her deceased husband in 1942 by a registered document.
1 Gokulananda Panda Original plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal.
The said Gangapani died in 1953.
He was a minor at the material time and the suit was instituted through his natural father and maternal uncle seeking a declaration that he was adopted as a son by defendant No.
The trial companyrt on an appreciation of evidence disbelieved the version of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit on taking the view that the plaintiff had failed to establish that any such adoption had taken place, A learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial companyrt and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had established that such an adoption had indeed taken place.
She having died during the pendency of the present appeal, the estate is number represented by her legal heirs whose names have been brought on record pursuant to the order of this Court on January 25, 1982.
P. Thakkar, J. Whether or number an adoption had taken place way back in 1956 is the companytroversy at the center of the stage.
One Rahasa Pandiani original defendant No.
