both D.Ws. 6 and 7. Thus, as per the depositions of these two witnesses, rituals of defendant no.3 are confirmed. The appellate court below has failed to take into consideration the evidence of D.Ws. 6 and 7 in its right perspective. In that view of the matter, Section 11(vi) of the Act, 1956 is complied with. So far as adoption-deed is concerned, although the plaintiffs alleged the deed as forged and fabricated document, no evidence was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs to substantiate the allegation that the deed was forged and fabricated, which was marked as Ext.-C. No evidence has been adduced as to what false and misrepresented fraud was played by the defendants upon Tentar Mandal. Ext.-C is proved by D.W.18.- Purnanand Thakur, who is the scribe of the deed. D.W.8- Amin Mandal claimed to have identified the executors of the deed. Exts. A/4 to A/9 are the signatures of attesting witnesses, proved by formal witnesses D.Ws.9, 16, 17 and 19. Ext.-B is the endorsement of stamp vendor, proved by D.W.4- Paresh Nath Roy, which shows that stamp in the name of Tentar Mandal was sold. The endorsement of SubRegistrar on the deed of adoption clearly shows that the executors of the deed Tentar Mandal, Madho Prasad Mandal (defendant no.1) and Dashish Mandalian (defendant no.2) admitted the execution of the deed before the Sub-Registrar. In view of these evidences, the deed of adoption cannot be said to be forged one and thus, the judgment relied by Mr. Srijit Choudhary in this regard in the cases of Mst. Deu, Baru, Ashwani Kumar and Ajay Kumar (supra) are in favour of the appellant. This Court finds that the judgment of the appellate court is bad as it fails to take into consideration Section 16 of the Act, 1956. The first substantial question is, accordingly, answered.
