JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Appellant is the plaintiff who has preferred the appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the first court of appeal in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1994.

2. Parties shall be referred to by their placement in the suit and will include their legal representatives substituted from time to time.

3. The plaintiff Jiro Mahto filed the suit for declaration that the deed of adoption No. 48 of 1964 was illegal, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. Case of the plaintiff in brief is that her husband Ganpat Mahto died in or about 1955 leaving behind the plaintiff as his widow and Rukmini Devi as daughter. His entire interest devolved on them. The plaintiff was residing in husband’s house and is in possession of the suit property. In July 1987, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 came to the village and Defendant No. 1 made a declaration that he had been adopted by the original plaintiff Jiro Mahto. On this, when she made enquiry she found that a forged and fabricated deed of adoption was created. There was actual giving and taking and the formalities and ceremonies of adoption were also not performed. Plaintiff was in need of money for the marriage of his daug