Attestation of a gift deed must be done after the execution of the deed by the donor.

This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Manipur, Imphal, in C. A. No. 72 of 1967, whereby he decreed the plaintiffs suit reversing the decree of the trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that his grand-father Sarangthem Chaoba Singh, was the owner of the suit land and he made a gift of the same in favour of the plaintiff under a registered instrument on 14-2-1962, being satisfied with his services. After the said gift, the plaintiff prayed for mutation of his name in the record of rights before the Assistant Settlement and Survey Officer, but the latter refused the mutation. In the meantime, the defendant, who is his paternal uncle, dispossessed him from the land on or about 14-11-1961, taking advantage of the fact that he held some receipts for payment of revenue in respect of the suit land, which he had paid as an agent of his father. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit land and for recovery of possession.

3. The defendant contested the suit denying the alleged gift. It was, however, not challenged that the suit land belonged to late Sarangthem Chaoba Singh. According to the defendant, Chaoba Singh was very old and insane at the time of the alleged gift, and he had no mental capacity to make the gift. It was alleged that the deed of gift was obtained by the plaintiff with the help of his father by exercising undue influence over the said Chaoba Singh. The defendant, on the other hand claimed that his father Chaoba Singh sold the suit land to him by delivery of possession for a consideration of Rs. 100/-, as back as 1942, and that since then he has been in possession by his own right. Alternatively he claimed title to the land by adverse possession.

4. Upon the pleadings, several issues were framed including the following issues which were issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively :

"3. Has the plaintiff right and title over the suit land on the basis of the deed of gift executed by late Chaoba Singh ?

4. Whether the deed of gift was caused to be executed by late Chaoba Singh under undue influence and by taking advantage of his insanity at the relevant time and as such it is void ?

5. Is the defendant a trespasser ? or, Whether the defendant has acquired title over the suit land on the basis of purchase as alleged in para 2 of the written statement or by adverse possession over 12 years ?"

5. In deciding issue No. 4, the learned Munsiff held that late Chaoba Singh was insane at the time of the alleged execution of the deed in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff obtained the same by exercising undue influence over him. In deciding issue No. 3, he further held that the alleged deed of gift was invalid for want of proper attestation, inasmuch as, the attesting witnesses signed the document before it was executed, as admitted by one of the attesting witnesses, namely, P. W. 5 I. Tomal Singh. In deciding issue No. 5, it was held by the learned Munsiff that there is no evidence in support of the alleged purchase of the suit land by the defendant, but he held that the defendant had acquired title to the land by adverse possession for more than 12 years against his father. With these findings, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit.

6. The learned District Judge, in the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff, reversed all the above findings of the learned Munsiff except the finding that there was no proof of sale of the suit land in favour of the defendant with which finding he concurred. In the result, the decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed with costs. Hence, the defendant has come up with this second appeal.

7. The only point which requires determination in this appeal is whether the deed of gift said to be executed by Chaoba Singh, which is required by law to be attested, can be said to be duly attested if the witnesses purporting to have attested the same signed the documen