The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the absence of a valid partition, a gift deed executed by a widow with respect to joint property is illegal and does not convey any right, title, or possession to the recipient.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The Defendants have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment dated, 10th August, 1977 and the decree signed on 23rd August, 1977 by Sri Aniruddh Prasad Chaudhary, the learned Addl. Sub Judge, Barh, in Title Suit No. 52 of 1976-77 decreeing the Plaintiff-Respondents suit for partition.

2. The Plaintiff-Respondents filed the aforesaid suit praying for partition and for declaration that the dead of gift dated, 14th November, 1975 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 is not binding on the Plaintiffs.

3. It may be mentioned here that the Defendant No. 1, Most. Feko Devi® Feko Dasi was the original Appellant No. 1 in this First Appeal. During the pendency of this First Appeal, she died and her name has been expunged.

4. The Plaintiff-Respondents filed the aforesaid suit claiming aforesaid relief on the facts inter alia that the suit property belonged to Ramswaroop Mahto. The Defendant No. 2, Mostt. Feko Devi was the first wife of Ramswaroop Mahto. The Plaintiff No. 1 is the second wife of Ramswaroop Mahto and the other Plaintiff-Respondents are the son and daughter of Ramswaroop Mahto.

5. According to the Plaintiff, Ramswaroop Mahto died on 14th September, 1975. He had no issue from the Defendant No. 1. With consent of her, he married the Plaintiff No. 1. Out of said second wedlock, Ramswaroop had three children. Plaintiff No. 3 and 4 are daughters and Plaintiff No. 2 the son was born on 28th March, 1976 after the death of Ramswaroop Mahto on 14th September, 1975. Late Ramswaroop Mahto was allotted the suit property in the partition with his cousin. After the death of Ramswaroop Mahto, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 came in joint possession of all the properties and the Plaintiff No. 1 is managing the property. The Defendant No. 2-Appellant is the brothers son of Defendant No. 1. Because of greed, the Defendant No. 2 got a deed of gift executed by Mostt. Feko Devi, the Defendant No. 1 on 24th November, 1975. Although, she had no right to executed the gift regarding Schedule 2 property of the Plaintiff. The deed of gift is illegal and in valid and does not convey any right title or interest to the Defendant No. 2. On the basis of gift, the Defendant No. 2 tried to dispossess the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff demanded partition but, the Defendant No. 1 avoided. Because of Legal necessity, the Plaintiff No. 1 has sold Plot No. 314 measuring 10.5 desimal to Defendant No. 3 who is in possession. The Plaintiff have got 15 anas share in the suit property.

6. The Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed a contesting written statement. Their case in short is that Plaintiff No. 1 is not legally married wife of Late Ramswaroop Mahto. Ramswaroop Mahto married her in 1959 without consent of Defendant No. 1. Because of this marriage, dispute arose between the two wives so in 1961, Ramswaroop Mahto partitioned his all properties between himself and his two wives. He gave 10.5 biggha to the Plaintiff No. 1 and 10.5 biggha to the Defendant No. 1 and he himself kept about 15 biggha land. He also delivered possession of the partition property to the wives who came in possession and mutated regarding the said lands. They are paying rent separately. Only the Plaintiff No. 3 and 4 are the daughter of Ramswaroop Mahto bom through Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 is not the son of Ramswaroop Mahto rather he is the son of brother of Plaintiff No. 1.

7. The further case of the Defendants is that Ramswaroop Mahto was suffering from T.B. and was not keeping good health for last 25 to 26 years before his death. So, he was keeping the Defendant No. 2 to look after and manage the family properties. Defendant No. 2 was managing the properties and out of pleasure, Defendant No. 1 executed a deed of gift regarding the property which had been given to her by Ramswaroop in partition in the year 1961. And since then, the Defendant No. 2 is in possession of all these gifted properties. The Defendant No. 3 got sale deed executed