Short Note : 1. The plaintiff's case is that the suit house bearing municipal Nos. 13/473 and 13/474 belonged to one Mst. Bitti Bai. According to the plaintiff, Bitti Bai had gifted the suit house in equal share to the plaintiff and defendant by means of a registered gift deed dated 7-4-1937. Thereafter the parties resided in the suit house together till 1952 when the plaintiff went out of Raipur in connection with his service and the defendant continued in possession on behalf of both the co-owners. The suit house was then mutated in the name of both the parties. In April 1962 the plaintiff returned to Raipur and stayed in the suit house. At that time he learnt for the first time that the defendant got the name of the plaintiff struck off from the assessment register of the Municipal Corporation and got her own name mutated as the sole owner. The plaintiff, therefore, filed this suit for partition of the suit house and for delivery of his half share in the suit house. The defendant controverted all the allegations of the plaintiff and denied that the suit house was gifted by Bitti Bai to the parties. The defendant also denied the execution and attestation of the gift deed. The defendant submitted that even if there was such a gift, it stood revoked as the plaintiff failed to abide by the terms of the gift deed by not maintaining Bitti Bai. The defendant asserted that she was in possession as owner of the suit house for the last 25 years openly, exclusively and notoriously and therefore she has perfected her title by adverse possession. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit but in appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Held: The only question is whether the plaintiff has proved his title as co-owner of the suit house. The plaintiff can succeed by the strength of his own title and not by reason of weakness of the defendant's title. S. V. Raghunadha v. C. N. Chetti (10 MIA 151)]. Held: The only question is whether the plaintiff has proved his title as co-owner of the suit house. The plaintiff can succeed by the strength of his own title and not by reason of weakness of the defendant's title. S. V. Raghunadha v. C. N. Chetti (10 MIA 151)]. The original gift deed has not been produced but the plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the registered gift deed which was admitted in evidence by the trial Judge but the appellate Judge rejected the secondary evidence as he found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the original has been lost and was not traceable. The parties were minor when the gift deed was executed and the plaintiff was only aged 10 years in 1937. The plaintiff stated that he had seen the original gift deed in possession of the defendant but subsequently he stated that when he went out of Raipur in 1952, he had entrusted the gift deed to the defendant because he had full faith in her. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that the gift deed was not executed in his presence nor he was aware as to whom the gift deed was delivered after its execution. He could not state from where he got the gift deed before he entrusted the same to the defendant in 1952. No presumption under section 90 of the Evidence Act can be drawn in respect of certified copies of the original document. The Privy Council in Basant Singh v. Brij Raj Saran ( AIR 1935 PC 132 ) has laid down that if the copy, admited under section 65 as secondary evidence is over 30 years old then only the signatures authenticating the copy can be presumed to be genuine. Here, the original itself could not have been 30 years old when the evidence was recorded. Secondary evidence under section 65 of the Evidence Act can be given if it is proved that the original is lost or destroyed though the plaintiff was not required to prove the loss of the original absolutely as has been held by the Privy Council in Basant Singh v. Brij Raj Saran ( AIR 1935 PC 132 ). However, the appellate Judge also considered the case by proceeding with the assumption that the plaintiff was entitled to produce secondary evidence i.e. the certified copy of the gift deed. However, the appellate Judge also considered the case by proceeding with the assumption that the plaintiff was entitled to produce secondary evidence i.e. the certified copy of the gift deed. But the plaintiff has failed to prove that a valid gift deed was executed by Mst. Bitti Bai on 7-4-1937. The certified copy Ex. P-1 shows the gift deed to have been executed by Bitti Bai and attested by 2 witnesses Baijanath Prasad and Vishwanath Pande. Bitti Bai and Baijanath Prasad are dead and Vishwanath Pande has been examined. According to this witness, he had put signature on this document in a temple and he did not know when the document was actually written. He was also unable to state as to whether the document was registered or not. He did not state that he or other attesting witness had put their signatures in the presence of Bitti Bai and, as such, it has been rightly held that since due attestation has not been proved, the gift deed was invalid. Besides, the plaintiff Narendra Kumar (P W. 1) has admitted in his cross-examination that Bitti Bai, even after execution of the gift deed, did not hand over possession to the parties and she continued to remain in possession of the suit house and she was herself carrying on repairs etc. He also admitted that the defendant in occupation of the suit house since 937 till 1944 and even after the death of Bitti Bai in 1944 she continued in exclusive possession. The plaintiff's parents were admittedly alive on the date of the execution of the gift deed. There is no evidence whatsoever about acceptance of the gift deed on behalf of the minor. The plaintiff also admitted that he had earlier sent a notice to the defendant that partition has already been effected, but now he has resiled from that position. In view of the unsatis-factory state of evidence, the plaintiff's suit has been rightly rejected. Appeal dismissed.