1. This appeal, by the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff, Darbari Upadhyay is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court by which the lower appellate court rever sing the judgment and decree of the trial court has dismissed the suit.

2. The principal relief claimed in the suit was a declaration that the several deeds of gift described in Schedules 2 and 3 and Danpatra mentioned in Schedule 4 of the Plaint were illegal, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff and that they were never acted upon. Admittedly, all the deeds of gift, which are the subject matter of the suit have been executed on 5.12.1950 by Raktu Upadhyaya. One of them, Ext.-A is in-favour of Mahesh Kahar. The second, Ext. E-1 is in favour of defendant No. 6, Dwarika Pandey and third, Ext. A-1 is in favour of the defendant No. 1 Ram Subhag Pandey. The plaintiff brought this suit for declaration on the footing that he was the nearest heir of the deceased Raktu Upadhaya and that Raktu Upadhaya had lost all powers of understanding and he was insane and of unsound mind at the time he is alleged to have executed these various deeds. The case of the plaintiff was that in