The main legal point established is the requirement of proper attestation for gift deeds under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and the rights of female Hindus to their self-acquired property under the Hindu Succession Act.

Original plaintiff Late Girja Devi and her daughter Rukmini Devi brought title Suit No.143 of 1987 against the appellants for declaration that the registered deed of gift executed by Chamru Sah in favour of appellant Radha Sah on 03.06.1977 and registered deed of gift dated 19.07.1977 executed by Smt. Tulni Devi first wife of Chamru Sah in favour of the defendants-appellants in respect of Schedule-C property are quite illegal, invalid and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

2. The case and claim of the plaintiffs as disclosed in the plaint is that one Halkhori Sah had two sons Chamru Sah and Radha Sah. (It is worth to mention here that Radha Sah, his wife Lalita Devi and his minor son Hari Sewak Sah are defendants of the suit and original appellants herein).

3. Further case is that Chamru Sah was first married with Tulni Devi and after losing hope of any issue from Tulni Devi, Chamru Sahah again married with plaintiff Girja Devi and from the wedlock of Girja Devi he got a daughter Rukmini Devi who was plaintiff No.2 to the suit. The case of the plaintiffs is that Schedule-A property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants and from the joint family fund, Schedule-B property was acquired through different registered sale deeds by Chamru Sah and Tulni Devi. Schedule-B property was never treated as separate property of anyone and was always treated as joint family property. The defendant-Radha Sah was Karta of the family as Chamru Sah was of weak intellect. Taking advantage of his dominance on the joint family, Radha Sah practised fraud upon Chamru Sah and brought into existence a registered deed of gift dated 03.06.1977 in respect of the joint family properties in his name. Subsequently, another registered deed of gift was manufactured which was dated 19.07.1977 said to be executed by Tulni Devi in favour of appellant Lalia in respect of the land which was standing in the name of Tulni Devi as per the registered sale deed. The main thrust is that coparcenary property was alienated by gifts against the mandate of law. Hence, both the gift deeds are sham and void transactions.

4. The appellants filed written statement refuting and disputing the case and claim of the plaintiffs-respondents on different grounds inter alia on the ground that plaintiff Girja Devi was not wife of Chamru Sah nor plaintiff No.2 Rukmini is daughter of Chamru Sah rather plaintiff No.1 is wife of one Mathura Sah and plaintiff No.2 is daughter of Mathura Sah from plaintiff No.1. The defendants-appellants denied that the defendant No.1 was ever Karta of the family. Schedule-A and Schedule-B property were never joint family properties. The plaintiffs were never coparceners. The deed of gifts under challenge are valid and genuine documents, they were acted upon and the allegation of creation is false and concocted one and finally prayed that the plaintiff deserves no relief in the suit.

5. The learned Trial Court chalked out different issues for consideration including issue No.6 as to whether the plaintiffs have got any concern with the family of Late Chamru Sah. The learned Trial Court noticed that the plaintiffs’ witnesses have supported the case that the plaintiffs are wife and daughter of Chamru Sah whereas the defendants’ witnesses denied the aforesaid fact. However, Ext.-1 and Ext.-4, the Voter Lists and School Leaving Certificate of plaintiff No.2 revealed that plaintiffs were wife and daughter of Chamru Sah. The documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence weighed in favour of the plaintiffs’ case and the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff No.1 is second wife and plaintiff No.2 is daughter of Chamru Sah. The finding was affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court.

6. The learned Trial Court decided two issues jointly as Issue Nos.7 and 8; whether the deed of gift dated 03.06.1977 and dated 19.07.1977 executed in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 are illegal and invalid. Whether they were procured by practising