( 1 ) THE third contention advanced by Mr. Vyas was that the gift deed in question was not proved and so the transmission of the right title and interest of the plaintiff no. 1 to and in the suit property had not got transferred to the plaintiff no. 2 and that it continued to be vested in the plaintiff no. 1. The gift deed has been spoken to by the plaintiff and the plaintiff no. 2 has specifically proved it by speaking clearly that it was the plaintiff no. 1 who had executed the gift deed and got it registered after getting it attested by the attesting witnesses all of whom had put their signatures on the deed in question in his presence. The plaintiff no. 2 also stated that as the plaintiff no. 1 was ill-disposed in those days the Registrar was specially summoned to the residence of the plaintiff no. 1 and the registration formality was undertaken. Mr. Vyas however contended that unless an attesting witness was examined to prove the due execution by the plaintiff no. 1 the document in question namely ex. 88 could not be said to have been duly proved. Reliance in support of this plea was sought for from sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act the proviso of which clearly