( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the 1st court of the Additional district Judge, Midnapore, affirming those of the 2nd Court of the Assistant District judge, Midnapore, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the original plaintiff, Sm. Dukhi Dasi, praying for a declaration of her title to the suit property and recovery of possession thereof after setting, aside the registered deed of gift dated April 26, 1949 executed by her in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. A further prayer was made by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendant nos. 3 to 9 had not acquired any title to the suit property by virtue of their purchase of the same from the defendant nos. 1 and 2.

( 3 ) THE original plaintiff Sm. Dukhi Dasi, since deceased, was the second wife of one Gaya Jana. Gaya Jana married one Rashmoni and after her death, he married Dukhi Dasi. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Gaya Jana by his first wife. Dukhi Dasi had a son, Lakshmikanta, and a daughter Kadambini. The suit property belonged to Gaya Jana and, after his death, the same developed upon Lakshmikanta. Lakshmikanta having died unmarried, Dukhi Dasi inherited the suit property as the heiress of her son. It is the case of the defendants that she made a gift of the suit property to the defendant nos. 1 and 2, her stepsons, by a registered deed of gift dated April 26, 1949. The suit, as stated before, was filed by her, inter alia, for the cancellation of the said deed of gift.

( 4 ) DUKHI Dasi died during the pendency of the suit. After her death, one Durga Pada Jana, the present appellant, made an application praying for his substitution in place of the deceased Dukhi Dasi alleging that he was taken in adoption by the deceased. The learned Assistant District Judge by his order No. 74 dated February 12, 1968, allowed the prayer for substitution without however, recording any finding as to whether there was any valid adoption or not. By the said order, the learned Assistant District Judge granted leave to the defendants to file an additional written statement. Pursuant to the said leave, the defendant's nos. 1 and 2 filed an additional written statement challenging the validity of the alleged adoption. The learned Assistant District Judge, however, did not frame any additional issue on the question of adoption, nor did he record any finding in respect thereof.

( 5 ) THE case of the defendants was, inter alia, that they had been possessing the suit property by virtue of the deed of gift which was lawful and that, in any event, they had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession. Further, they also challenged the validity of the adoption of the said Durga Pada Jana by Dukhi Dasi.

( 6 ) THE learned Assistant District Judge came to the finding that the deed of gift was quite, legal and valid, and that the defendant's nos. 1 and 2 had been in possession of the suit property by virtue of the deed of gift. Upon the said findings, the learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the suit.

( 7 ) ON appeal by the plaintiff the learned Additional District Judge came to the findings that as the execution of the deed of adoption by Dukhi Dasi was not accompanied by actual delivery of the boy to her by his father there was no valid adoption. So far as the deed gift in favour of the defendants nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, the learned Additional District Judge held that although it was a genuine document and that the suit property was gifted to the defendants nos. 1 and 2 by Dukhi Dasi, yet the document was not legally admitted into evidence as the execution and attestation of the deed was not proved by one of the attesting witnesses. The learned Additional District Judge however, found that the deed of gift was executed by Dukhi Dasi with full knowledge of its contents. In view of his finding that the deed of gift was not legally admitted into evidence, the learned Addition