JUDGMENT Sulaiman, C.J. and Collister, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of certain property. The Plaintiff is one Dharam Singh. His case was that he had been adopted about 25 years ago by Mukh Ram, Defendant No. 4, and that he has lived with him ever since, but that it was not until the 16th January, 1918, that a formal deed of adoption was executed. On the 20th of October, 1928, Mukh Ram unlawfully executed a deed of gift in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 namely, Abhay Ram son of Shibba and Abhay Ram son of Mehar Chand, in respect to this property, and the two latter persons on the 25th October, 1928, gifted a portion of this property to Bansi Singh, Defendant No. 3, (who is a brother of the Plaintiff). Subsequently Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 obtained mutation in their names. The Plaintiff had attested the deed of gift which Defendants 1 and 2 executed in favour of Defendant No. 3. by affixing his thumb impression thereto, but he pleaded that his attestation had been obtained by fraud and he thought that it was a mortgage deed which was being executed. He accordingly claimed possession of the whole property as against Defendants 1 to 3. 2. The suit was contested by Defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 3 did not put in an appearance. Defendant No. 4, has apparently been more or less stone deaf for many years. He appeared in Court and made a voluntary statement under Order 10, Rule 2, to the effect that he had executed the deed of gift in favour of Defendants 1 and 2, under compulsion. He was subsequently examined on oath as a court witness and it was inferred from certain signs which he made and from the fact of his not producing a deed of cancellation which had been summone d from him that he was supporting the case of the Plaintiff. The case of Defendants 1 and 2 was that no ceremony of adoption had ever been performed and that the Plaintiff was in fact not adopted ; that the deed of adoption of the 16th January, 1918, had been cancelled by Mukh Ram on the 15th September, 1922; that Mukh Ram executed the deed of gift of 20th October, 1928, in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who an: related to him as nephews because he was unable to manage his property, and Defendants 1 and 2 in their turn executed an agreement undertaking to pay Mukh Rap Rs. 200 a month; and that Plaintiff attested the deed of 25th October. 1928, with full knowledge of its contents. Defendants 1 ind 2 further denied that the Plaintiff had ever lived with Mukh Ram. 3. The leaned Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarnagar has found that Dhiram Singh Plaintiff was adopted by Mukh Ram 25 or 26 years ago and has since been living with him, that the property in suit belongs to the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4, and that the deed of gift in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 was therefore 2 not valid and does not bind the Plaintiff. Abhay Ram, son of Mehar Chand, alone appeals from the decree of the Court below. The main plea which has been taken before it is that the Court below has erred in finding that the fact of adoption is proved. In the deed of adoption of 16th Janua y, 1918, it was recited by Mukh Ram that there had been a necessity for him to adopt a son and that he had already adopted him with due rites. Mukh Ram was summoned to produce the deed of cancellation dated 15th September, 1922, but he did not produce it. Register No. 4, was accordingly summoned from the office of the Sub-Registrar and it appears from it that Mukh Ram admitted in that document that he had adopted Dharam Singh, but that for certain reason i he wished to cancel that adoption. In addition to the recital in the deed of adoption and in the deed of cancellation Plaintiff has examined six witnesses. The Plaintiff himself went into Court and made a statement about his adoption under Order 10, Rule 2; but when he gave evidence in Court, his Counsel for some reason or other did not ask him any questions on the subject of adoption. All his witnesses have deposed to the fact of adoption. Sis Ram is a Brahman, and he says that he cooked the food on the occasion. Tata is a nai by caste and he says that it was he who sent to invite the people of the biradari to the ceremony. All his witnesses have deposed to the fact of adoption. Sis Ram is a Brahman, and he says that he cooked the food on the occasion. Tata is a nai by caste and he says that it was he who sent to invite the people of the biradari to the ceremony. He was the family barber of Mukh Ram at the time, Khazan Singh, Naubat and Shanker are Jats to which caste the parties also belong. Kundan Lal is a vaish by caste and he states that he joined the ceremony. Defendant No. 1, Abhay Ram son of Shibha, went himself into the witness box and he also produced 4 Jat witnesses, all of whom have denied that any adoption took place or that the Plaintiff lived with Mukh Ram. Abhay Ram admitsi however, that the Plaintiff and his father Harnam used to come and live with Mukh Ram from time to time and used to look after his cultivation and that Harnam was actually living with Mukh Ram at the time of the former's death. Nathu admits that the Plaintiff used to come and visit Mukh Ram; and Niadar similarly admits that the Plaintiff often stays with Mukh Ram and that his father also used to do so. Bhabi Chand is an uncle of Mukh Ram but he too admits that Harnam and the Plaintiff used to visit Mukh Ram and that Harnam was stopping in Mukh Ram's house as his guest when he fell ill and died. The Court below has remarked that the witnesses for the Plaintiff gave their evidence in a convincing way and in the light of their evidence and of the recitals in the two documents to which reference has been made, it has found that a ceremony of adoption was in fact performed about 25 years ago. Having heard Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant and having examined the evidence, we see no reason to disagree with this finding of the Subordinate Judge. The latter finds that by the ceremony referred to the Plaintiff was duly adopted. Counsel for the Defendant Appellant pleads, however, that even if the evidence for the Plaintiff be accepted as it stands, there was no valid adoption in law. The latter finds that by the ceremony referred to the Plaintiff was duly adopted. Counsel for the Defendant Appellant pleads, however, that even if the evidence for the Plaintiff be accepted as it stands, there was no valid adoption in law. He bases this plea on the ground that there is no evidence to show that there was any express consent to or acceptance of the adoption on the part of Mukh Ram's wife. He relies on a Privy Council case reported in Shoshi Nath Ghose v. Krishna Sundari Dasi (1881) 6 Cal 381: 7 Ind. App. 250. Towards the end of that judgment their Lordships remarked as follows: It would seem, therefore, that according to Hindu usage, which the courts should accept as governing the law, the giving and taking in adoption ought to take place by the father handing over the child to the adoptive mother, and the adoptive mother declaring that she accepts the child in adoption. 4. That remark was based on the evidence which had been given in that particular case; but we do not think it was meant as an authority for the proposition that an express consent or acceptance on the part of the adoptive mother is in all cases essential for the validity of a Hindu adoption. 5. In an earlier case, Rungama v. Atehama and Ors. (1846) 4 Moo. Ind. App. 1:7 W.K. P.C. 57, their Lordships, of the Privy Council laid down that: The adopt Ion of a son being a duty enjoined by the Hindu religion for the spiritual welfare of the childless man, there is no authority to be found in the Hindu Law which precludes him from making that adoption without the consent or co-operation of his wife. Adoption is the act of the husband a lone; the wife's assent is not requisite. The wife may, if required; join n the performance of the ceremonies of adoption, but the act is that of the husband alone. 6. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Atma Ram v. Madho Rao (1884) 6 All. 275: 1884 A.W.N. 828 (F.B.), held that even in the case of Brahmans no religious ceremony was required to give validity to the adoption of a brother's son, the giving and taking of the child being sufficient for that purpose. 6. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Atma Ram v. Madho Rao (1884) 6 All. 275: 1884 A.W.N. 828 (F.B.), held that even in the case of Brahmans no religious ceremony was required to give validity to the adoption of a brother's son, the giving and taking of the child being sufficient for that purpose. It is true that in that case the person adopting was a widow, but the view of the learned Judges apparently was that the 'taking' should be by the person desiring and competent to adopt. We are of opinion that under the Hindu law it is not essential that the wife should expressly declare her consent to the adoption. But in any case then: is evidence in the case before us to show that Mukh Ram placed the boy in his wife's lap and it might therefore reasonably be inferred that there was an acceptance on her part of the adoption. In our opinion the Court below has rightly found that the Plaintiff is the adopted son of Defendant No. 4, and that the deed of gift which was executed by the latter in favour of the Defendants 1 and 2 is therefore invalid and does not bind the Plaintiff. 7. There is also a plea in respect to estoppel on the ground that the Plaintiff attested the deed of gift which was executed by Defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No. 3. There was no issue on this point in the Court below and the plea has not been seriously pressed before us. Defendant No. 3, has not put in an appearance and so he presumably supports the case of the Plaintiff, and Defendants 1 and 2 can in any case have no claim to that portion of the property which they gifted to Defendant No. 3. Either it belongs to Defendant No. 3, or it belongs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is apparently illiterate and it was by means of his thumb impression that he attested the document. There is no evidence to show that he knew what the: contents of the said document were and we are clearly of opinion that there was no estoppel. The result of our findings is that we dismiss this appeal with costs.