1. - The only point arising for decision in this second appeal by the plaintiff, who has failed in both the lower courts is whether the adoption of the defendant Gaurishanker to Bakshi Ram by the latter's widow Smt. Janki is proved? It is the admitted position of the plaintiffs that if Gaurishanker's adoption to Bakshiram is establish d, they have no case. But their contention is that Gaurishanker's adoption to Bakshiram by Mst. Janki has not been proved according to law.

2. It is not disputed before me that Mst. Janki had executed an adoption deed (Kholanama) in favour of Gaurishanker as the adopted son to her deceased husband Bakshiram and this adoption deed (Ex. A-1) contains an unequivocal declaration by Mst. Janki that she had adopted Gaurishanker to her deceased husband Bakshiram.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to prove that there was ceremony of giving and taking Gaurishanker in adoption. It is contended that in absence of giving and taking which is the most essential requirement of a valid adoption under the Hindu Law, no valid and legal adoption of Gaurishanker to Bakshiram can be