JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal defendants have challenged the judgment and decree of the learned lower court dated 22.11.2004 by which suit for adoption of appellant No. 1 Namonarain by registered adoption deed dated 20.9.1990 executed by Surgyan S/o Jagan by caste Meena, respondent herein through sister as next friend viz., Mst. Santra who is alleged to have taken the appellant in adoption has been decreed The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that Surgyan is an insane person (minor) and incapable of adopting defendant-appellant No. 1. 2. Learned trial court has dismissed the suit. On appeal, learned lower appellate court has decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 which is impugned herein. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. A perusal of the judgment of learned lower Appellate court reveals that it has decided only issue No. 1 on the basis of adoption deed dated 20.9.1990 being void on account of averments made in paras No. 4 to 9 in the plaint. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, other issues No. 2 to 4 are also material issues on which finding of the learned court below was required to be given as well. 4. The question that requires determination in this case is whether Surgyan-plaintiff who is reported to be an insane person (minor) was in fact not of sound mind on the date when the adoption deed dated 20.9.1990 was executed by which defendant-appellant No. 1 Namonarain was taken in adoption. Learned courts below relied upon the Exhibit-5 dated 13.11.2000 which is medical certificate but it does not reveal the facts as to what was the state of the mind of plaintiff on the material date i.e. 20.9.1990. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of parties also submitted that the Doctor who has issued the aforesaid certificate has also not been examined. In this view of the matter, the certificate by itself cannot be construed as substantial evidence unless it is proved by the person who issued the same and the opposite party has opportunity to cross examine the said witness. 5. In this view of the matter, the certificate by itself cannot be construed as substantial evidence unless it is proved by the person who issued the same and the opposite party has opportunity to cross examine the said witness. 5. Since the matter relates to the alleged act on the part of the minor, the duty lies with the court also to protect the interest of the minor and, therefore, in this view of the matter, it would be necessary that the case be remanded to the learned first appellate court for its decision on the matter afresh including all the issues after examining the Doctor who issued the Exhibit-5. It may be at the behest of either the plaintiff or the court to summon the Doctor who issued Exhibit-5 with opportunity to the parties to cross examine the witness. 6. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 with the consent of the parties is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned first appellate court to decide the same afresh. The parties, in case if they so desire may lead evidence in rebuttal on the evidence of Doctor who issued exhibit-5. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first appellate court on 23.3.2005. It is further directed that parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute. 7. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal disposed of as above. *******