JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — Plaintiff has filed this appeal against the reversing decision. 2. The original suit was filed by Bamadeb Badu for declara¬tion that the registered deed of gift dated 17.1.1983 is void and not binding on the plaintiff and for declaration that defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on the death of the original plaintiff, present plaintiff was substitut¬ed as the sole legal representative. Thereafter, the petition for amendment of the plaint was filed. 3. The case of the plaintiff as per the amended plaint is as follows : Late Bamadeb Badu, the original plaintiff, is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. He was an old helpless person suffering from blurred vision since last six years. His wife had died about thirty-five years back and his old mother had expired ten years back and his only son Gunanidhi had died thirteen years back. The defendant is related to late Bamadeb Badu as an agnetic nephew. Taking advantage of the helplessness of late Bamadeb Badu, the defendant prevailed upon Bamadeb Badu to execute a deed of adoption and in the process, obtained a registered deed of gift. The terms and recitals of the document were not within the knowledge of deceased Bamadeb and he never intended to execute a deed of gift, nor the same was accepted by the defendant, nor possession was given. Coming to know of such document, initially Bamadeb had filed the suit 4. The defendant in his written statement apart from denying the allegations made by the plaintiff, took the plea that the plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the transaction. It was pleaded that the natural father of the present plaintiff had been adopted away to another family and as such plaintiff was not the nearest heir. It was also stated that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as other brothers and sisters of the plaintiff had not been impleaded as parties. It was further pleaded that the deed of gift had been duly executed by late Bamadeb Badu. It was further pleaded that the defendant had been adopted by late Bamadeb Badu and the transaction is valid and binding on all concerned, as the same was not vitiated by fraud. 5. The trial found that the defendant had not been adopted by late Bamadeb Badu. It was further pleaded that the defendant had been adopted by late Bamadeb Badu and the transaction is valid and binding on all concerned, as the same was not vitiated by fraud. 5. The trial found that the defendant had not been adopted by late Bamadeb Badu. The deed of gift had not been duly executed nor it had been acted upon. It was further found that the plain¬tiff being the daughter of brother of late Bamadeb Badu had locus standi to challenge the deed of gift and the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On these findings, the suit was decreed. 6. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the finding that defendant was not the adopted son of late Bamadeb Badu, but was an agnetic nephew. It was further found that the plaintiff being one of the children of the brother of deceased Bamadeb Badu had locus standi to file the suit. It was found that the deed of gift had not been fraudulently obtained. On these findings, the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. 7. The trial Court had rendered a finding that possession of the disputed property had not been delivered. The lower appellate Court has not given any finding on this aspect on the ground that such a case had not been pleaded. Paragraph-10 of the amended plaint which corresponds to paragraph-9 of the original plaint indicates that it had been averred that the gift had not been accepted by the defendant and deceased Bamadeb had never parted with possession of the immovable property mentioned in the deed of gift. A perusal of Sections122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that a deed of gift, in order to be valid, must be accepted by the donee during life-time of the donor, Merely because a deed of gift is proved to have been executed, it cannot be assumed that the gift has been accepted during life-time of the donor. Though a finding had been given by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court has not given any finding on this aspect on the ground that such a plea had not been taken. This observation of the lower appellate Court appears to be an error of record, as it appears that in paragraph-10 of the plaint, a plea had been taken. This observation of the lower appellate Court appears to be an error of record, as it appears that in paragraph-10 of the plaint, a plea had been taken. Since this aspect has not been considered by the lower appellate Court, it is necessary that the matter should be reconsidered by the lower appellate Court. 8. On going through the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it appears that the discussion regarding execution of the deed of gift appears to be perfunctory. Since the matter is going on remand to the lower appellate Court to consider the aspect as to whether the deed of gift had been accepted or not, the ques¬tion of due execution of the gift deed is also required to be re-considered by the lower appellate Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respond¬ent submitted that the substituted plaintiff was claiming right on the basis of a Will, but had failed to establish her right as the will had not been probated. It was submitted that in case the plaintiff’s right on the basis of the Will is not established, the other brothers and sisters of the plaintiff being equally related to the deceased were also the heirs of the deceased. It is, therefore, submitted that the suit itself was hit by princi¬ple of non-joinder of necessary parties. For reasons indicated hereinafter, such submission of counsel for the defendant-respondent is not acceptable. If it is ultimately found that defendant has not derived any right on the basis of deed of gift, the status of defendant would be just like a trespasser and he cannot succeed on the plea that the title to the property in its entirety does not vest with the plaintiff alone, but with plain¬tiff and others. The question as to whether plaintiff is the sole heir of the deceased or a co-heir along with other brothers and sisters is a matter between them. Evidently, those persons not being parties to the suit would not be adversely affected and any decree in favour of the plaintiff would enure to their benefit if it is ultimately found that the plaintiff was not the sole heir. The question of non-substitution of all the heirs would not arise in such a case as plaintiff was claiming on the basis of Will. The question of non-substitution of all the heirs would not arise in such a case as plaintiff was claiming on the basis of Will. If the Will is not probated, the decree, if any, in favour of the plaintiff shall enure to the benefit of other co-sharers which is a matter between plaintiff and other co-heirs and does not affect the defendant. 10. The counsel for the defendant-respondent also submitted that the father of the substituted plaintiff had been adopted to some other family. However, such contention has been rejected by both the Courts below and being a finding of fact is not avail¬able to be re-agitated. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court for re-consideration on the question as to whether the deed of gift had been duly executed and whether the same had been accepted during the life-time of the donor. The other finding relating to status of the plaintiff and the finding that the defendant was not the adopted son are confirmed. Parties are directed to appear before the lower appellate Court on 23rd December, 1999. The lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on the basis of evidence on record in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records. The fact that the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration should not be considered to be indicative of expression of any opinion on the question relating to validity of the deed of gift. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.