Rajiv Roy, J.—The present First Appeal has been preferred against the order and judgment dated 25.5.2006 and the decree dated 30.5.2006 in Partition Suit No. 246 of 2000 (Sita Devi v/s Most. Luhia Devi and Ors) by which the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VI, Samastipur, held that the plaintiffrespondent, Sita Devi is entitled to 1/3rd share of the land as also 4 katha 1 dhur from the 1/3rd share of her mother, Luhia Devi which was gifted to her by a registered deed dated 25.8.2000.

2. The matrix of facts giving rise to present appeal is/are as follows:

3. Sita Devi, plaintiff-respondent preferred Partition Suit No. 246 of 2000 for the partition of the suit land to the tune of 1/3rd share each between her, sister and mother. The details of the suit land are as follows:—

4. The further case of the plaintiff-respondent, Sita Devi is/was that by virtue of registered gift deed dated 25.8.2000 by her mother Luhia Devi, she is also entitled to 4 kathas 1 dhur from the 1/3rd share of the said Luhia Devi.

5. It is apt to bring on record the genealogy of the family for the proper appreciation of the case:—

6. The case of the plaintiff-respondent in the said suit was/were that:—

(i) she was married and despite her marriage, she used to take care of her mother;

(ii) happy with the said service, her mother Luhia Devi executed deed of gift on 25.8.2000 with regard to 4 kathas 1 dhur out of her 1/3rd share;

(iii) accordingly, she got possession of the said land;

(iv) during 'Durga Puja', same year, she went to her in-laws house;

(v) her another sister, Pawan Devi took advantage of the said absence of the plaintiff and accordingly got executed another deed of gift from Luhia Devi on 16.10.2000 with regard to14 kathas much above the 1/3rd share of the mother;

(vi) Muni Lal Rai had left behind only 28 kathas 8 dhurs;

(vii) accordingly, Luhia Devi was entitled to only 1/3rd of the share i.e. 8 kathas 2 and half dhurs;

(viii) as such, she was not entitled to execute any deed of gift for 14 kathas i.e. half of the land in the backdrop of the fact that she had already executed 4 kathas 1 dhur in favour of the plaintiff vide registered deed dated 25.8.2000;

(ix) accordingly, after the knowledge of the fraudulent act of her sister, she demanded partition;

(x) the same having been refused, the Partition Suit No. 246 of 2000 was filed.

7. Pawan Devi, the other sister of plaintiff-appellant (Sita Devi) herein appeared and filed her reply with the following submissions:—

(i) she had already filed Partition Suit No. 240 of 2000 which is pending;

(ii) the gift deed dated 25.8.2000 is in fact a forged and fabricated document;

(iii) the genealogy that the plaintiff has provided is wrong and baseless;

(iv) Luhia Devi was married to Babuji Rai and the cou