He, therefore, submits that in the absence of a clear finding that the Defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Bhikari and Dura, the Courts below ought not to have validated the two documents, i.e.,Exts.A and B; the one which is of acknowledgement of adoption-cum-gift and the other one, the deed of gift. In elaborating the above, he contends that on a plain reading of Exts.A and B, side by side keeping a touch over the evidence on record those flowing from the pleadings of the Plaintiff, the intention of the executant is very clear that the assumed fact of adoption is the reason and motive of gift and a condition to it and, therefore, when the adoption of Defendant No.1 by Bhikari and Dura, the Defendant No.2 has not been established, the deeds i.e, Ext.A and B ought to have been held as void, illegal and inoperative. It is submitted that the statement made to be effect affected that a person is the adopted son cannot be recorded as determinative as of the question of adoption by any rule of law or prudence. It is thus submitted that here the proof of a valid adoption of Defendant No.2 and he being the adopted son of Bhikari and Dura being the foundation to vitiate the documents such as
