1. This appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 arises out of a suit brought by respondent No. 1 for partition of Kast lands of village Pachrukha Tola Mokhlishpur, Police Station Motibari Muffasil, appertaining to Tauzi No. 911, in the district of Champaran.

2. According to the parties, the common ancestor was Sheik Bhikhu, who had two sons--Sheikh Pahari and Sheikh Langat. A partition was effected between the heirs of the two brothers and separate possession of the branches of each of the two brothers was noted during the revisional survey operation. The land of Khata No. 64 to the extent of 17 Kathas 7 dhurs was recorded in the names of Sheikh Khoda Bux, Sheikh Gudar, Sheikh Revasat Ali and Sheikh Gulzar, who were the heirs of Sheikh Langat, and the heirs of Sheikh Pahari also got possession to the extent of half in that land. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was that the lands described at the bottom of the plaint were coming in joint possession of the respondent No. 1 and the appellants, although they were cultivating the lands separately, there had been no partition by metes and bounds. Hence the suit.

3. The case of the appellants was that there was no unity of title and unity of possession between them and respondent No. 1. According to them, the present suit for partition was virtually brought for the cancellation of the deed of gift dated 24-1-1956 executed by Sheik Reyasat Ali in favour of these appellants and for declaration of title of the respondent No. 1. According to them the parties, were entirely separate. The lands detailed in the schedule of plaint were the self acquired property of Reyasat Ali, the father of the appellants, as well as respondent No. 1, which he gave to the appellants by means of a registered deed of sift (Hibbanama) dated the 24th January 1956. The area conveyed by the deed of gift was 6 Bighs 15 Kathas 151/2 Dhurs. As the other defendants have not appealed to this Court, the finding of the Court below in respect of other lands is affirmed.

4. The present appeal is confined only to 6 Bighas 15 Kathas 151/2 Dhurs of land which, according to the case of the appellants, was given to them by their father Reyasat Ali by means of a registered deed of gift dated the 24th January 1956. Mr. Prem Lal. Learned counsel for the appellants, did not challenge the findings of fact arrived at by the Court below. In view of the submissions made by him and Mr. Md. Khaleel, Counsel for the respondent No. 1, only two points arise for consideration, namely.

(i) As to whether there was a valid gift in the eye of law by Reyasat Ali in favour of the appellants?

(ii) Even if the deed of sift was a valid document in the eve of law, was it hit by the law of Mushas?

5. The finding of the learned trial Court is that the execution of the deed of gift stands proved as respondent No. 1 did not challenge its execution by Reyasat Ali. It has further found that there was no reliable evidence to substantiate the case of fraud and undue influence as alleged by respondent No. 1. The further finding arrived at by the Court below is that the appellants have proved that "there was a declaration of gift by donor and that they (the appellants) had accented the gift."

6. It may be stated that the deed of gift dated the 24th January, 1956 (Ext. A) was filed in Court from the custody of, the appellants. A clear recital has been made therein by Revasat Ali (who died prior to the institution of the suit) that 6 Bighas and odd land covered by Ext. A was his self acquisition. It is also stated therein that respondent No. 1 had left this house long before and married a Chamarin and was living in her house, due to which the father Revasat Ali was extremely aggrieved. There is also a clear recital in Ext. A. that due to services rendered by the appellants, the donor executed a Hibbanama and put the donees in possession of the lands treating them as full owners of the same. There is a further recital which goes to show that whatever