P.S. Mishra, J.

Defendant No.1 of Title Suit No. 162 of 1972 of the court of 1st Subordinate Judge, Arrah, has moved this Court in appeal against the judgment and decree of the 4th Additional District Judge, Arrah, in Title Appeal No. 87 1976. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on contest with costs. The court of appeal below has, however decreed the suit.

2. Relevant facts are as follows:

Sanjogiya, grand-mother of the respondent 1st party filed the suit for declaration of her title upon the lands described in the schedule and for confirmation of possession over the same or in the alternative for recovery of possession. She also prayed to set aside three deeds of gift dated 18.11.1968 alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the defendants. She died during the pendency of the suit. Her granddaughters (respondents 1st party) were substituted in her place as the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, Halkhori Singh had two sons, namely, Shri Ram Singh and Ramsevak Singh. Shri Ram Singh died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Rajdhari Singh and Algu Siugh and his widow Sanjogia. Rajdhari died in the state of jointness with his brother Algu Singh. Sanjogiya surrendered her interest in favour of Algu Singh. Alga Singh died after he got surrender, from Sanjogia leaving behind his widow Matijharia who came in possession over the suit properties. Algu also left behind two daughters, namely, Chandmani and Parbati (respondents 1st party). Ram Janam Singh, who was son of Ram Sewak and father of the appellant, however, during the absence of Matijharia Kner took Mosst. Sanjogia to Arrah and on the pretext of taking Bazdawa deeds in favour of Matijharia, Chand Wani and Parbati, made her to execute three deeds of gift in the names of his sons on 18.11.1968. On return from Arrah, Sanjogia told Matijharo everything. Chand Mani's husband made inquires on her behalf and on behalf of his wife and sister-in-law and they came to know from the inquiry about the execution of the deeds of gift allegedly executed by Sanjogiya in favour of Ram Janam Singh in the name of his sons. Sanjogiya, thereafter, filed the suit alleging, inter alia, that she was an old lliterate pardanashin lady who could not know the desigus of Ram Janam and impleading the three son, of Ram Janam, namely, the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, alleged that the said three deeds of gift were fraudulent and obtained under undue influence. In their written statement the defendants alleged that Chand Mani and Parbati were not the daughters of Algu but they were daughters of one Sita Ram of Dalipur, that Sanjogia had great affection for them and she gifted away her interest to them by executing the deeds of gift out of her own free will.

3. The trial court held that the plaintiffs Chandmani and Parbati were the daughters of Algu and, therefore, they had right to be substituted in place of the original plaintiff Sanjogia and to continue the suit. It also found that the deeds of gift executed by Sanjogia in favour of the defendants were legal and binding on the plaintiffs. It accordingly dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs, thereafter, moved in appeal and the court of appeal below held that the deeds of gift dated 18.11.1968 were tainted with fraud and undue influence, and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs. Defendant No.1, one of the donees, has moved this Court in appeal against the said judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court of appeal below has committed error of law in holding that the deeds of gift dated 18.11.1968 were tainted with fraud and undue influence. He has submitted that there has been no allegation of undue influence nor any proof for the same. According to him the court of appeal below could not have held that the gift was affected by fraud in the absence of a finding that any misrepresentation was made by the defendants upon which Sanjogiya executed the deeds of gift. Learned c