Short Note : 1. The title of defendant No.5 Krishnakant to the suit land was based on a registered gift-deed dated 6-4-42 of which Ex. P-14 is a certified copy, executed by Sunderbai, mother of Murlidhar defendant No.4, in favour of Krishnakant defendant No.5. There is no dispute that the original owner of the suit land was Sunderbai. According to the plaintiffs, Krishnakant became owner of the suit land in this manner and also simultaneously obtained possession of the land which was then transferred to the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale-deed (Ex. P-8) dated 7-5-64. 2. Both the Courts below have accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit. It has been found that the aforesaid gift• by Sunderbai in favour of Krishnakant was duly proved and that possession was delivered to Krishnakant at the time of gift, which in turn, was transferred to the plaintiffs by Krishnakant at the time of sale made in plaintiff's favour. Held: The first contention of Shri V. S. Dabir, learned counsel for the appellant, is that execution of the gift-deed being denied by the defendants, it was necessary to prove its execution by examining one of the attesting witnesses as provided by section 68 of the Evidence Act. On this basis, he argues that the gift has not been proved in favour of Krishnakant. It may be stated at the out-set that no such objection was taken in the trial Court and at the trial, it was taken to be assumed that execution of the gift-deed by Sunderbai in favour of Krishnakant was not in dispute. For this reason, the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce secondary evidence by production of a certified copy of the deed and the gift was found duly proved even without examining any attesting witness. It has been found by the Courts below that the original document was in possession of the defendant No.4 Murlidhar who has deliberately withheld it from the Court. A perusal of the issues framed by the trial Court and its judgment also indicates that the Court acted according to the proviso to section 68 on its view that execution of the deed held not been specifically denied. When this point was raised for the first time in the first appellate Court, it was considered at length and rejected on merits by the Court below. When this point was raised for the first time in the first appellate Court, it was considered at length and rejected on merits by the Court below. The first appellate Court has considered this point at length and given cogent reasons for holding that the making of the said gift-deed has been duly proved. I am in full agreement with the same and it is, therefore, not necessary to reiterate all those reasons. It is sufficient to mention that in the written statement of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, there was no specific denial of execution of the gift-deed and defendant No.4 Murlidhar as DW 4 admitted its execution, in paragraph 6 of his deposition. Earlier admissions made by defendant No.4 Murlidhar on this point, one of which is contained in the letter (Ex. P•16) written by him to his son Krishnakant defendant No. 5, has also been rightly relied on by the Court below. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, I do not find any merit in this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is, therefore, rejected. Appeal dismissed.