D. H. SHUKLA, M. K. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE original plaintiff whose suit for partition and accounts of the properties belonging to his deceased adoptive father was dismissed has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree by which his special suit No. 71 of 1970 was dismissed by an order dated 31 July; 1972 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jamnagar. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) IT is to be seen that the document is executed by Gaga Punja. That person is not examined though alive. The original document is also not produced and brought on record; but a certified copy is on record at Ex. 67. It was alleged that the original was with deceased Malde that is the deceased husband of defendant No. 1 and that as it was not forthcoming a copy should be exhibited. Now ordinarily a document would go after registration to the person who had executed the same that means it would go to Gaga Punja and unless Gaga Punja comes and explains as to what happened to the original document it would not be permissible to have a copy on record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) THIS document is therefore of a highly suspicious nature and cannot be relied upon particularly when the executants of the documents viz. Gaga and Liribai who are alive are not examined. ( 4 ) BUT apart from this a deed of adoption even if registered can not be pressed into service to prove the factum of adoption which if challenged must be established by oral testimony of persons who were present at the ceremony deposing to the effect that all the formalities including the act of physically giving and taking of the boy in lawful manner had taken place. The factum of adoption is required to be proved by cogent evidence and mere execution and registration of an adoption deed cannot be a substitute for the same. ( 5 ) MR. Mehta then took us through the evidence of priest Lalji Karsanji who according to the plaintiff was the person who performed the necessary ceremonies with regard to adoption on 21st April 1953. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) MR. Mehta then took us through the evidence of priest Lalji Karsanji who according to the plaintiff was the person who performed the necessary ceremonies with regard to adoption on 21st April 1953. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HE then refers to the performance of Puja of Satyanarayan and Chandla ceremony. In the Satyanarayan Puja Malde Matubai Gagabhai Liribai and Maruthat is plaintiff were present besides other village people. This was performed at the house of Malde. Maru was given bath first. Then Chandla was applied on his forehead and after he was made to sit near Shri Bhagwan Sankalpa was first made by Gaga and Liribai to the effect that Mulu was being given by Gaga and Liri as son to Malde. Malde and Matubai made the Sankalpa of taking Mulu as their son. Mulu was already ready to be adopted. Then Slokas were chanted. This is the only ceremony he refers to. He does not refer to any physical act of giving and receiving which is absolutely necessary to the validity of adoption nor does he refer to the usual Datta homan that is oblations of clarified butter to fire nor any other minor ceremonies such as putresti Jag (sacrifice for male issue) to which ceremonies reference has been made by Mulla in sec. 488 of his Principles of Hindu Law at page 553. The evidence therefore of the Gor or the priest who is supposed to have performed the necessary ceremonies for the adoption does not establish the performance of the most essential ceremony viz. the physical act of giving and receiving as also the ceremony of Datta Homam and minor ceremonies such as putresti jag (sacrifice for male issue) etc. As Mulla in sec. 489 says; the physical act of giving and receiving is absolutely necessary to the validity of an adoption. This is so not only in the case of the twice born classes but also in the case of Shudras. This ceremony is of the essence of adoption and the law does not accept any substitute for it. Mere expression of consent or the execution of a deed of adoption though registered but not accompanied by an actual delivery of the boy does not operate as a valid adoption. This ceremony is of the essence of adoption and the law does not accept any substitute for it. Mere expression of consent or the execution of a deed of adoption though registered but not accompanied by an actual delivery of the boy does not operate as a valid adoption. To constitute giving and taking in adoption all that is necessary is that there should be some overt act to signify the delivery of the boy from one family to another. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony but the law requires that the natural parents should hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent should receive him. ( 6 ) NOW in the instant case no such essential requirements are ful filled. The priest does not refer to any physical act of giving and receiving nor Datta Homam nor any minor ceremonies. The physical act of giving and receiving is essential to the validity of an adoption; whereas the plaintiffs witness priest Laljibhai refers to mere Sankalpa on the part of the respective parents which would constitute a mere mental state and cannot take the place of the physical act of giving the boy in adoption and taking him as such. There is no overt act attributed signifying that the boy was delivered from one family to the other. There is nothing to suggest that the natural parent actually handed over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent actually received him. There is therefore no adoption in law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 7 ) IT would be significant to note that the real persons concerned that is the natural father and mother of the plaintiff who are alleged to have given their son in adoption are not examined from the plaintiffs side though both of them are alive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 7 ) IT would be significant to note that the real persons concerned that is the natural father and mother of the plaintiff who are alleged to have given their son in adoption are not examined from the plaintiffs side though both of them are alive. Mere words by them as put in their mouth through the deposition of the plaintiff to the effect that they were giving and similar words put in the mouth of the receiving couple to the effect that they were receiving in our opinion cannot be a substitute for the physical act of giving and receiving which has to be strictly proved by showing an overt act on the part of the natural parent to hand over the adoptive hoy with a corresponding act on the part of the adoptive parent to receive the boy. Thus in any view of the matter there is no evidence worth the name establishing that any valid act of adoption had taken place as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must therefore fail on this count alone. ( 8 ) APART from the same the conduct of the plaintiff all throughout is inconsistent with this case of adoption. There is no material on record establishing that after the alleged adoption in 1953 the plaintiff shifted over from his natural parent to the adoptive family and lived as a member of the family of deceased Malde Sida. Except his bare word that he was living with the deceased after adoption there is no other exercise to support his say. None of the village people nor any relatives nor any other member of the family has come forward to say that the plaintiff was living as a member of the family of deceased Malde. But on the contrary there is evidence on record showing that the plaintiff continued to behave as if he was not adopted and continued to be the son of his natural father Gaga Punja. This is evident from Ex. 93 and Ex. 87 extracts from the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1971 wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown as son of Gaga Punja. He is shown as Mulu Gaga and not as Mulu Malde. The ration card at Ex. 91 also shows his name as Muly Gaga and in Ex. This is evident from Ex. 93 and Ex. 87 extracts from the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1971 wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown as son of Gaga Punja. He is shown as Mulu Gaga and not as Mulu Malde. The ration card at Ex. 91 also shows his name as Muly Gaga and in Ex. 92 the ration card register of 1969 at page 43 his name is shown as Mulu Gaga. Again the plaintiff has got two sons and he admits that there is a Barot of his family who keeps the register in which pedigree of his family is maintained and that in that register he has got the names of his two sons entered in the pedigree of Gaga Punja and not under the pedigree of Malde; and lastly as stated by the defendants the plaintiff had not performed the death ceremonies after the death of Malde who had no natural son and under the circumstances if the plaintiff had been adopted as alleged then in the usual course of events the Shraddha ceremony etc. which are required to be performed on the 10th and 11th day after death would have been certainly performed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does say that he had performed the ceremony but that rests merely on his bare word and the learned Judge was therefore right in not believing him particularly when he who gave details of the ceremony of his alleged adoption could not give details of the Shraddha ceremony It was his case that the ceremony was performed in the presence of Velji Gor who is not examined. The plaintiff could have established this fact by examining Velji Gor. Thus his conduct is also contrary to the conduct of a person who was adopted as far back as 1963 and this also supports the defendants case. Appeal dismissed. .