Judgment 1. The plaintiff preferred this second appeal before this court. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of title in respect of the property mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit property on the basis that he is the adopted son of Thakur Prasad and his wife, it is said that on 15th Baisakh 1348 Fasli the parents of the plaintiff (Kalyani Mishra and Maho Debya-husband and wife)gave the plaintiff in adoption to Thakur Prasad Roy and his wife Jog Maya Debya. 3. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff and denied the factum of adoption of the plaintiff. 4. On these facts, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The trial court held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Thakur prasad Roy. On appeal the tower appellate court set aside the decree of the trial court, 5. The main point tor consideration in this appeal is:- Whether there was any giving and taking ceremony of the adopted son (Plaintiff) between the natural parents of the plaintiff and the adoptive parents of the plaintiff? 6 This aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the lower appellate court. In this connection a reference may be made to the following passages of Maynes Hindu Law, 11th Edition at p. 237 :- "The giving and receiving are absolutely necessary to the validity of an adoption. They are the operative part of the ceremony, being that part of it which transfers the boy from one family into another. But the Hindu Law does not re-quire that there shall be any particular form so far as giving and acceptance are concerned For a valid adoption, all that the law requires is that the natural father shall be asked by the adoptive parent to give his son in adoption, and that the boy shall be handed over and taken for this purpose." Reference was also made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshman Singh Kothari V/s. Smt. Rup Kanwar, ( AIR 1961 SC 1378 ). In this connection the Supreme Court held as follows:- The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the Hindu Law, whether among the regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law re-quires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of the ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse cir-cumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine of delegations, and there-fore, the parents, after exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adop-tion, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him, as the case may be, to a third party." A reference was also made to a decision of the Privy Council in Shosinath Ghose V/s. Krishna Sundari Dasi, ((1880) ILR 6 Cal 381). The short point for consideration before the Privy Council was:- "............Whether there can be, ac-cording to Hindu Law and usage, an adoption simply by deed, and without that corporeal delivery and acceptance of the child which is almost universally treated as the essential part of an adoption in the dattaka form, ... ... ..." Their Lordships of the Privy Council held in that case that giving and taking is an essential ceremony in adoption. In that ceremony the natural parents should hand over the child to the adoptive parent. The adoptive parent should also accept the child in adoption. This is the most essential ceremony in adoption. In this connection the Privy Council rightly held "It would seem, therefore, that according to Hindu usage, which the court 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". 7. In this connection the Privy Council rightly held "It would seem, therefore, that according to Hindu usage, which the court 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". 7. The law may be briefly stated thus:- The giving and taking ceremony is es-sential to the validity of an adoption. It is an operative part of the ceremony. This ceremony is common amongst the Sudras as well as in twice-born classes. The ex-ecution of a deed in connection with giving and taking ceremony cannot be treated as a substitute for giving and taking ceremony. The giving and taking ceremony is compulsory, both for the twice born classes and the Sudras. The adoption can only be held valid provided the giving and taking ceremony is per-formed between the parties. In the giving and taking ceremony, the presence of the natural parents, adoptive parents and the child is necessary. The natural parents shall give the child in adoption to the adoptive parents, and the adoptive parents shall declare that they accepted the child in adoption. The only difference between the Sudras and the twice-born classes is that the twice-born classes also perform datta homan ceremony, in particular, apart from the giving and taking ceremony. The giving and taking ceremony suggests the intention of the parties that the natural parents intend to transfer their child to the family of adoptive parents. If no such ceremony is per-formed, then the intention of the parties cannot be gathered. Hence, in order to have a valid adoption, there must be a giving and taking ceremony. 8. In the present case, the lower appellate Court did not discuss the giving and taking ceremony while discussing the issue of adoption. The lower appellate court set aside the issue of adoption with-out discussing the giving and taking cere-mony. Hence, the lower appellate Court committed an error of law. In this circumstance, I remand the case for a fresh consideration to the lower appellate Court. In every adoption case, the court should see as to whether there was any giving and taking ceremony or not. Hence, the lower appellate Court committed an error of law. In this circumstance, I remand the case for a fresh consideration to the lower appellate Court. In every adoption case, the court should see as to whether there was any giving and taking ceremony or not. If there was no giving and taking ceremony of the adopted son between the natural parent and the adoptive parent, then it must be held that there was no adoption. In other words, giving and taking cere-mony is an essential ceremony of the adoption. If the plaintiff fails to prove this ceremony, the case of the plaintiff shall fail. It is for this reason, I remand the case to the lower appellate court for a fresh consideration as the ceremony in relation to giving and taking ceremony has not at all been discussed by the lower appellate court in its judgment. In this connection a reference was made to the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13. While deal-ing with the evidence of P. W. 12 in para-graph 29, the lower appellate court did not discuss the evidence of P. W. 12 in connection with the giving and taking cere-mony of the adopted child. In other words, the lower appellate court did not touch the factum of giving and taking ceremony in connection with the issue of adoption. The trial court discussed the evidence of P. Ws. 12 and 13 in connec-tion with "giving and taking" ceremony. In other words, the lower appellate court set aside the issue of adoption without discussing the evidence in that connection. Hence, I hold that the lower appellate Court committed an error of procedure. In this circumstance, I remand the case to the lower appellate Court for a fresh decision on the existing materials before it. The lower appellate Court is directed to deliver judgment after hearing both parties. I have not touched other find-ings of the lower appellate court. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed the judgment and the decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the case is remanded back to it for a fresh conside-ration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made. The par-ties will bear their own costs in this court.