JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), have challenged the judgment and decree dated 5th August 2021 and 12th August 2021 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Bhadrak in R.F.A. No.119 of 2014. The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.239 of 2006) for declaration of the boundary line of the land described in Schedule-'A' of the plaint and permanent injunction as against the Appellants arraigned as the Defendants in the suit from causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the said land by the Plaintiffs. The suit having been decreed, the Defendants since thereby suffered had carried the Appeal under section-96 of the Code. The Appeal has also been dismissed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have been confirmed. The Appellants as the Defendants thus have remained unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Appellants (Defendants), who have remained unsuccessful in the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 3. Plaintiff's case is that the suit land described in Schedule-'A' of the plaint originally belonging to Daitari Panda. He had no male child but had two daughters namely, Nirmala who is the wife of Plaintiff No.l and mother of Plaintiff No.2 and Rangalata another daughter namely, Rangalata, who is the Defendant No.2 and she is the wife of Defendant No.l and mother of Defendant Nos.3 & 4. It is further stated that two daughters of Daitari with their family were residing in the same village where their father Daitari was residing and they were residing right from the time of their marriage. Daitari being in need of money for his treatment had sold 3250 sq.links from Plot No.902, Ac.0.03 decimals from Plot No.906, Ac.0.04 decimals from Plot No.899 and Ac.0.34 decimals from Plot No.674 in toto 44250 sq.links. This was sold to the Plaintiff No.l, who happens to be his son-in-law, the husband of Nirmala, the daughter of Daitari namely, Nirmala. The sale was made by Daitari by executing registered sale-deed on 25.03.1996. This was sold to the Plaintiff No.l, who happens to be his son-in-law, the husband of Nirmala, the daughter of Daitari namely, Nirmala. The sale was made by Daitari by executing registered sale-deed on 25.03.1996. From the time of purchase of the land, the Plaintiff No.l began to possess the same as its owner and that was also mutated in his name in Mutation Case No.1142 of 1996. Daitari then, on 26.09.1998, gifted away some lands to his two grandsons i.e. Plaintiff No.2 (son of Nirmala) and Defendant No.3. Prasanna (son of Rangalata). He thereby gifted away Ac.4.15700 sq.links to Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.3. The donees since the time of the gift possesses the respective gifted land through their natural guardians. The Plaintiff No.1 after his marriage was looking after the cultivation of Daitari Panda and he had also taken him for pilgrimage by spending money from his own purse. Daitari being pleased with the service of Plaintiff No.l, then gifted the land of Ac.5.96950 sq.links to him by executing another registered gift of deed on l8.08.200l. The Plaintiff No.l from that time being delivered with the possession of the said land and accepting the said gift has been possessing the said land. The Plaintiffs thus, are claiming to be the exclusive owners of Schedule-'A' land. It is stated that the Defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, when they are the owners of the rest portion of the plots which they have also got on gift by Daitari. On 20.07.2006, when the Defendants attempted to forcibly encroached upon Schedule-'A' land on the pretext of demarcation, the Plaintiffs requested them for amicable demarcation to which they first agreed, but later on withdrew. So the Plaintiffs finally having no other alternative filed the suit. 4. The Defendant Nos.l to 3 in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments, admitted that Daitari Panda to be the rightful owner of the Schedule-'A' & B land and that Nirmala and Rangalata are his two daughters and Plaintiff No.l and Defendant No.l to be the two son-in-laws. It is stated that Daitari since had no male issue, he had settled his two daughters with their husband over his land after their marriage. It is further stated that Defendant No.l has two sons and they had the land of Ac.8.00 acres. It is stated that Daitari since had no male issue, he had settled his two daughters with their husband over his land after their marriage. It is further stated that Defendant No.l has two sons and they had the land of Ac.8.00 acres. Daitari Panda was fond of the Plaintiffs as well as Defendants and therefore he had no justification/reason to discriminate between the family of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. They challenge that the registered gift deed dated 18.08.2001 has been obtained by the Plaintiffs, without the knowledge of the Daitari and therefore said gift was not acted upon and thus the title in respect of the gifted land cannot be said to have flown from the hands of Daitari to the hands of the Plaintiffs so as to be entitled to decree of demarcation. 5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings framed as many as five (5) issues. Proceeding to answer the crucial issues as to the right of the Plaintiffs to have Schedule-'A' land for getting demarcated and their entitlement to the relief of permanent injunction of the evidence as to the challenge to the gift as has been levelled by the Defendants have been discussed. Finally, keeping in view the rival pleadings and appreciating the evidence in the touchstone of the same, the answers have been provided against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit stood decreed. The First Appellate Court being moved by the unsuccessful Defendants has confirmed the decision of the Trial Court. 6. The Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial questions of law:- 'Whether the gift deed dated 18.08.2001 under Annexure-8 has been validly executed in favour of Nirmala, the daughter of donor?' 7. Mr. S.B. Panda, learned Counsel for the Appellants (Defendants) submitted that when the Plaintiffs had claimed the reliefs stating to have acquired title over the suit property in Schedule-A on the basis of deed of gift since the Defendants have denied its execution by the donor namely, Daitari Panda as also questioned its acceptance, there being no satisfactory evidence on that score, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed the grave error in recording the finding of issue nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the Plaintiffs. 3 and 4 in favour of the Plaintiffs. He further submitted that the execution of the gift being by Daitari being challenged, both the attesting witnesses to the gift deed have not been examined. He further submitted that when during the lifetime of the donor, the suit was filed, the said donor being not arraigned as party to the suit filed by the Plaintiffs; the suit ought to have been dismissed. 8. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents submitted all in favour of the concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. In inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint as well as the counter averments in the written statement, he submitted that when the gift made by Daitari in favour of the Defendant No.3 has been accepted by the Defendants in saying that it has duly executed by Daitari and accepted by the donee therein, they have come forward to challenge this deed of gift in favour of the Plaintiff No.l covering Schedule-'A' land simply on the ground of nonacceptance which itself under the circumstances is not deniable. He further submitted that when the Plaintiffs in view of the challenge made by the Defendants have duly proved the execution of the deed of gifts, Exts.8 & 9 and it being there in the evidence that the gifts too were accepted, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on detail scrutiny of the evidence have rightly held the said gifts to be valid. He also submitted that when the donor till his death had not challenged the deed of gift made by him and when the Defendants accept the gift made by Daitari in favour of the Defendant No.3 as valid and as per the law when there was no requirement for the Plaintiffs to examine both the attesting witnesses as one of the attesting witness to the gift deed has been examined and his evidence on the score on execution of the gift deed by the donor and attestation have remained unshaken, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly decreed the suit. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the plaint and written statement filed by the parties as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by them. 10. In order to find out answer to the substantial question of law by addressing the rival submissions, it is felt necessary first to give a look to the relevant pleadings in the plaint of the written statement. The Plaintiffs in the plaint have stated the followings:- '3. That Daitari Panda in need of money for his treatment sold Ac.03250 sq.links from plot No.902, Plot No.906, Ac.03, Ac.0.04 out of 899 and plot No.674, Ac.0.34 in total Ac.0.44250 sq.links to this plff. No.l under sale deed dated 25.03.96. since the date of purchase this plff. No.l is possessing the same. He had also mutated the same in his name vide M.C. No.ll42/96 and accordingly the same has been recorded in the name of this plff. No.l. 4. That Daitari Panda was very much fond of plff. No.2 and Deft. No.3. Accordingly he gifted away properties to both Plff. No.2 and Deft. No.3 under two separate Regd. gift deed dated 26.9.98. The said Daitari panda gifted away in total A4.32300 sq.links to Plff.2 and A4.l5700 sq.links to Deft. No.3. The said gifted properties of Plff. No.2 are described below. Since the date of gift Plff. No.2 on taking delivery of possession of the same through his mother possessing the same and enjoying it exclusively. Scheduled Gifted Land l. M.S. Khata No.70l Plot No.883 A0.00500 sq.links out of total area A0.08 dec. 2. M.S. Khata No.l7l Plot No.900 A0.00400 sq.links out of total Area A0.02 dec. 3. M.S. Khata No.700 of Plot No.882 area A0.00400 sq.links out of A0.l3 decimals (Bebandabasti) corresponding to M.S. Khata No.662/139 Plot No.881 A0.14 out of A0.16 dec. 5. That this plff. No.1 after his marriage was looking after the cultivation of Daitari Panda. He was taking all possible case of this in-law parents. He had also taken Daitari panda and his wife in pilgrimage at his expenses. Besides it he was helping them in all ways. As such being pleased with his activities the said Daitari panda gifted away A5.96950 sq.links of land to this plff.No.1 under Regd. Gift deed dt. 18.8.01. He was taking all possible case of this in-law parents. He had also taken Daitari panda and his wife in pilgrimage at his expenses. Besides it he was helping them in all ways. As such being pleased with his activities the said Daitari panda gifted away A5.96950 sq.links of land to this plff.No.1 under Regd. Gift deed dt. 18.8.01. Since date of gift the plff.No.1 is possessing the same on taking due delivery of possession. The said gifted lands are described below. 6. That as aforesaid these plffs. Are the exclusive owner of the 'A' Scheduled land by virtue of gift deed and sale deed. The defendants have no manner of right, title, interest or possession in respect of the same. The drafts. Are owner of the rest portion of the Plots which they got from said Daitari Panda.' 11. The Defendants traversing the averments made in paragraph-3 of the plaint appears to have gone in evasively denying the same as not correct. Similarly, in response/ reply to the averments made in para-4 of the plaint, in paragraph-9 of the written statement simply, it is stated that same are false. The averments taken in paragraph -4 of the plaint have not been denied. There is no dedicated paragraph in the written statement in response to the averments made in pagra-5 of the plaint. And lastly, the averments taken in paragraph -6 of this plaint have again been stated as false. The Defendants as it appear have laid their case in challenging the claim/case of the Plaintiffs by placing the facts in paragraph-15 of their written statement which reads as under:- '15. That, Daitary Panda had all total A08.00 dec. of land. In fact Daitary was fond of Plaintiff as well as the Defendants with equal manner. There was no discrimination in his mind to both the families. So, the alleged Registered Gift Deed dated 18.08.01 obtained by the Plaintiff beyond the knowledge of deceased Daitary Panda. The so-called gift deed has not at all acted upon. of land. In fact Daitary was fond of Plaintiff as well as the Defendants with equal manner. There was no discrimination in his mind to both the families. So, the alleged Registered Gift Deed dated 18.08.01 obtained by the Plaintiff beyond the knowledge of deceased Daitary Panda. The so-called gift deed has not at all acted upon. So when the deed in question is inoperative, question of demarcation does not arise.' From the above, the state of affairs in the pleadings, it is found that the Defendants have simply challenged the deed of gift in question in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 to have not been acted upon and thus it is stated that the gift in question is inoperative and question of demarcation of the land in suit does not arise. 12. The Defendants are not challenging the lands covered under Exts.7 and 9 that is the deed of gift dated 25.03.1996 and 26.09.1998. The first one is the deed of sale of the land in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 and deed of gift in favour of the Plaintiff no.2 and Defendant No.3. The challenge is to the deed of gift dated 18.08.01 which has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext.8. This is a registered deed of gift scribed by one Jayanta Kumar Nayak. The witnesses to the deed of gift are Dayanidhi Panda and Raghunath Das. That Dayanidhi Panda has been examined as P.W.2 and he has stated in the clear terms that his co-villager, Daitari who also belongs to his caste had executed the said deed of gift by signing in his presence and he has proved his signature on the said deed as well as the signature of the other witness Raghunath as also that of the donor. When much has been said about the manner of execution, lack of independent advice for Daitari in further saying that Plaintiff No.1 has managed to obtain deed of gift in a fraudulent manner by practicing fraud, it is found that there is absolutely foundation to that effect in pleading (W.S.). Therefore, the challenge to the said deed of gift on the above score and the contentions raised by the Defendants in those directions cannot be gone into. Therefore, the challenge to the said deed of gift on the above score and the contentions raised by the Defendants in those directions cannot be gone into. With regard to the objection that the gift under Annexure-8 has not been acted upon, the Courts have taken the view that for transfer of ownership of the gifted property, there is no need of proof the delivery of possession of the land and proof of the execution of the deed by the donor is sufficient to hold the same to have been acted upon especially when the lands covered under the deed of gift, Ext.8 had already mutated in the name of the Plaintiff No.l giving rise to the presumption regarding the acceptance of the gift by the donee, Plaintiff No.l. This Court finds the above view to be well in order. 13. In the wake of aforesaid discussion and reasons, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Plaintiffs which in turn leads to confirmation of the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in decreeing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. 14. The Appeal stands dismissed. There shall however be no order as to cost.