no continuity and they have paid the revenue occasionally and therefore, no credence can be attached for payment of revenue by both the parties. However, the materials on record disclose that the Tahsildar has mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue record and the same was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner. However, it is stated that WP No.14908 of 2020 is pending consideration before this Court and the order of mutation is stayed. Even if payment of revenue and the mutation in the name of the petitioner are ignored, there is absolutely no explanation regarding the recitals found in the registered adoption deed to which the father and mother of the respondents were parties. When there is clear recitals in the adoption deed which was executed at an un-disputed point of time, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the respondents to oppose granting the order of temporary injunction. Simply because, the petitioner had filed suit OS No.27 of 2010 claiming partition in the properties of his natural father, the same cannot be a reason to reject his claim, even in respect of properties of his adoptive father. It is for the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions and the Trial Court is required to consider the rival
