JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2001 and 12.1.2001 respectively of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2000 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1992 and 11.11.1992 respectively passed by learned Munsif, Bhanjanagar in T.S No. 35 of 1989 in a suit for permanent injunction. 2. Respondents are the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs-school was established mostly on the gift and donation of the public. The defendant gifted the suit schedule land to the school. He executed the registered gift deed No. 3658/1966, which was duly accepted by the school. Thereafter, the school made a huge investment to make use of the suit land and planted trees on it. The plaintiffs-school has perfected title by way of adverse possession. On 20.9.1989, the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs-school for which, the suit was instituted. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement stating therein that the suit land is the ancestral property of his father. The gift deed was procured from him by Jami Bada Kasinath Prusty, President of the Managing Committee of the school on misrepresentation that it was formally required to show solvency and status of the proposed High School to get recognition and aid. The gift deed was a nominal one. He never intended to gift the suit property to the plaintiffs-school. Possession of the land was not delivered. The land was not mutated by the donee. He had no right to execute gift deed in respect of the ancestral property. He is in possession of the suit land. During pendency of the appeal, the sole defendant died whereafter his legal heirs have been substituted. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues, out of which issue nos. 5 and 6 are pivotal, which are quoted hereunder: “5. Whether the gift deed dated 25.6.1966 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs school is a nominal one and does not confer any right on the plaintiff? 6. Whether the plaintiffs school has perfected its title by way of adverse possession?” 5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses and on their behalf, five documents had been exhibited. 6. Whether the plaintiffs school has perfected its title by way of adverse possession?” 5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses and on their behalf, five documents had been exhibited. The defendant had examined four witnesses and on his behalf, five documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court, on a vivid analysis of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary and pleadings, came to hold that the consent of other coparceners was not taken. The scribe and the attesting witness of the gift deed-Ext.1 were not examined. The gift was not accepted by the donee, nor delivery of possession of the property was made. The gift deed had not been acted upon. The gift was taken from the defendant by giving an impression that the same was required to get the recognition and financial aid from the educational authorities. The stamp paper had not been purchased either by the plaintiff or defendant, but by one Makara Swain. The scribe had subsequently added the schedule and other averments inside the body of the deed in a different ink, but he had not made any endorsement or attested the same. The schedule property had been subsequently introduced. All the circumstances would show that the gift deed is void and never acted upon. The plaintiffs had no title over the suit land. Accordingly, issue No. 5 was answered in favour of the defendants. Learned trial court further held that there is no pleading with regard to adverse possession and, as such, the plaintiffs have not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. 6. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiffs had filed Title Appeal No. 14 of 2000 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar. Learned lower appellate court came to hold that the defendant had suppressed the facts. Much prior to the institution of the suit, Ceiling Case being OLRMC No. 162/74 was instituted against the defendant and his father Kasinath Nayak. In the ceiling surplus proceeding, defendant filed an affidavit mentioning the details of the land in his possession stating therein that he and his father had no other land except the land mentioned in the affidavit. Much prior to the institution of the suit, Ceiling Case being OLRMC No. 162/74 was instituted against the defendant and his father Kasinath Nayak. In the ceiling surplus proceeding, defendant filed an affidavit mentioning the details of the land in his possession stating therein that he and his father had no other land except the land mentioned in the affidavit. The suit land did not find place in that affidavit; implying that on 17.5.1975 on which date, the affidavit was filed, the defendant had no claim over the suit land. In Ext.3, it was mentioned that the defendant did not file the partition deed. From the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhanjanagar, it was ascertained that the partition had taken place between Kasinath Nayak, his wife and their adopted son. The registration number was 4138/64. The Junior Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Aska produced the original register in which the contents of the document No. 4138/64 had been entered and marked as Ext.6. The defendant had suppressed the partition deed apparently to avoid to make public the entire extent of land fell to his share, his father and mother. The suit land along with other land had been allotted to the share of the defendant in the year 1964. The gift deed was executed in the year 1966. Thus the contention of the defendant that the suit land is a co-parcenery property is not correct. It was further held that the defendant admitted the signature in the gift deed. He stated that Subbarao Prustry and Kasinath Prustry requested him to gift the land to the school to get aid and took his signature in the blank stamp papers. One and half months thereafter, they took him to the Sub-Registrar Office to get document registered, the contents of which he did not know. In the written statement, the defendant took the specific stand that the gift deed was a nominal one. He was the owner of vast landed property. When the school was started, he was approached to gift some land which he did and executed a gift deed. It was subsequently cancelled but no such cancellation deed had been exhibited. In the written statement, the defendant took the specific stand that the gift deed was a nominal one. He was the owner of vast landed property. When the school was started, he was approached to gift some land which he did and executed a gift deed. It was subsequently cancelled but no such cancellation deed had been exhibited. The admission of the defendant that after execution of the gift deed till death of Jami Kasinath Prustry in the year 1978 he did not return the gift deed as promised by him negatived the contention of the defendant that he was not aware of the contents of the deed and its nature. On the other hand, he admitted that his son objected and he cancelled the gift deed. He being the owner of the land gifted it for charitable purpose. After execution of the gift deed, possession was delivered to the school. The delivery of the gift deed is itself sufficient to pass the property to the donee and transfer of possession was unnecessary. It was further held that in the draft ROR Ext.C below plot No. 667, the suit plot Nos. 515 and 520 had been surreptitiously added which shows the desperation of the defendant to get the claim of the school defeated by resorting to illegal activity. The defendant is not in possession of the suit land. It was further held that the civil court is competent to decide the validity and otherwise of the deed of gift. The authorities under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act are not competent to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the finding of the consolidation authority regarding the validity and genuineness of the gift deed cannot override the finding of the civil court. Held so, learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal. 7. The second appeal was admitted on 13.2.2004 on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether learned lower appellate court is correct in accepting the gift deed Ext.1 as legal and valid in view of the fact that attesting witness though alive was not examined to prove the same nor the plaintiffs took any steps to prove that the gift was accepted by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether learned lower appellate court is correct in accepting the gift deed Ext.1 as legal and valid in view of the fact that attesting witness though alive was not examined to prove the same nor the plaintiffs took any steps to prove that the gift was accepted by the plaintiffs? 2. Whether learned lower appellate court was correct in presuming that the land involved in the gift deed having not been mentioned in the ceiling proceeding under the O.L.R. Act the same was no more available to the family of the defendants and as such the same should be taken to have been gifted to the plaintiffs?” 8. Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.P. Raju, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, argued with vehemence that Jami Bada Kasinath Prusty, President of the Managing Committee of the School, prevailed upon the defendant to execute the land in favour of the school for the purpose of recognition and aid. Neither scribe nor attesting witness had been examined. Interpolation had been made in the gift deed. He further submitted that merely because the suit land was not mentioned in the ceiling surplus proceeding, no presumption can be drawn that the same was gifted in favour of the school. 10. Per contra, Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that there was a partition between the co-sharers of the defendant. The partition deed was registered in the year 1964. The suit schedule land fell to the share of the defendant. The defendant gifted the suit schedule land to the school. The same was acted upon. The defendant had suppressed the said fact. Further, in the ceiling surplus proceeding, the suit land was not mentioned. The gift deed is not a void document. Its validity has not been challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. The consolidation authorities are not competent to decide the validity of the gift deed and the finding of the consolidation officer cannot override the findings of the civil court. The plaintiff has prima facie title over the suit land. In view of the same, learned lower appellate court is quite justified in up-setting the findings of the learned trial court and allowing the appeal. 11. The plaintiff has prima facie title over the suit land. In view of the same, learned lower appellate court is quite justified in up-setting the findings of the learned trial court and allowing the appeal. 11. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) postulates that the gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. One of the essential elements in the gift deed is acceptance. Section 123 of the Act provides that for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses. The word ‘attested’ is defined in Section 3 of the Act. The word ‘attested’, in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. Where the validity of the gift deed is specifically denied, the donee has to examine the attesting witness of the gift deed. 12. The gift deed has been marked as Ext.1. The stamp papers were purchased on two different dates, i.e., 12.3.1966 and 17.3.1966. It consists of three pages. The doner had signed in the deed on 25.6.1966. However, the Sub-Registrar’s seal appearing in the back side of the stamp papers shows the date as “10.3.1966” i.e., three months prior to the date of execution of the gift deed, the same was registered. Subsequently, the same was manipulated and the figure ‘9’ has been written in hand over ‘10’. The Sub-Registrar had not put the date below the signature. Subsequently, the same was manipulated and the figure ‘9’ has been written in hand over ‘10’. The Sub-Registrar had not put the date below the signature. The signatures of the Sub-Registrar appearing in the first page and third page do not tally. In the third page, the schedule land has been mentioned in small letters in different ink. In the first page of the gift deed, the words “mango trees, land and Ac.3.89 dec.” have been written in different ink. In the second page, the doner had put his signature in two different ink. No attesting witness had been examined. All the circumstances indicated above would show that the gift deed was not validly executed. 13. In the wake of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2001 and 12.1.2001 respectively of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhanjanagar in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2000 is set aside. The second appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Before parting with the case, this Court observes certain disquieting features. The evidence on record reveals that there was a partition of the co-parcenery property between the defendant and other coparceners. The partition deed was registered in the year 1964. In the ceiling surplus proceeding, the suit schedule land was omitted. The defendant has surpassed the same in the court below. The reason of omission of the land in the ceiling surplus proceeding is not far to seek. Obviously the same was done to gain unfair advantage. The defendant is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. In view of the same, the Collector, Ganjam is directed to examine the ceiling surplus case initiated against the defendant and his family. In the event the Collector finds that the suit schedule land has not been mentioned in the ceiling case, he shall reopen the case and pass appropriate order.