JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC preferred by the sole plaintiff / appellant herein was admitted by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

"1. Whether the two Courts below were justified in holding that the Gift Deed was not properly executed so as to reject the claim of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the finding of the two Courts below is contrary to the evidence which have come on record and also on not proper appreciation of the admitted facts from the defendants themselves regarding the execution of the Gift Deed?"

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. The suit property which is mainly agricultural land total admeasuring 39.02 acres was settled in favour of Jitanram Gond, S/o Shivcharan Gond in Surguja Settlement as per the Final Report of the Settlement Officer on the Original Survey and Settlement Operations in the Surguja State for the year 1937-46 vide Ex.P-15. He had two daughters namely, Kayaso and Mayaso and one son Mansai. On 1-2-1955, he executed two registered gift deeds one in favour of the plaintiff herein - Kayaso gifting 4.86 acres + 9.65 acres of land in her favour and another in favour of Mayaso, who was plaintiff in the connected civil suit which is the subject matter of S.A.No.182/2004 [being decided along with this second appeal, but by a separate judgment], he gifted 7.40 acres of land in her favour (Mayaso). Thereafter, Jitanram Gond - original holder passed away on 12-12-1963. Mansai had two sons Dalsai and Baijnath who were defendants before the trial Court and defendant No.3 is daughter of Mansai. After the death of Mansai, dispute arose between the plaintiff and sons of Mansai - defendants No. 1 & 2 herein with respect to the property which was gifted by Jitanram Gond in favour of plaintiff herein Kayaso and Mayaso - plaintiff in the connected suit which is the subject matter of S.A.No.182/2004, which necessitated the institution of an action by plaintiff Kayaso only for permanent injunction against the defendants seeking decree for permanent injunction restraining from interfering with their peaceful possession stating inter alia that they are in possession since 1-2-1955 and they are cultivating the suit land, but the defendants are trying to dispossess her, as they entered into the field owned by the plaintiff on 31-10-1982 and attempted to harvest the crop sown by her. During the pendency of suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint by order dated 25-10-1985 and also sought declaration of title over the suit land and amended that the suit property has been gifted by her father, as it was the selfacquired property of her father Jitanram Gond and therefore she is also entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction as well, as already claimed and parties are aboriginal tribe being governed by the old Hindu law. The plaintiff also asserted that she is the gharjihin daughter of Jitanram Gond, therefore, even otherwise, she is entitled for share in the property of her father.

3. The defendants filed their written statement and in para 3(a) of the written statement, they have specifically admitted that the suit property was originally owned by Jitanram Gond who died on 12- 12-1963 and after his death, father of defendants No.1 & 2 - Mansai succeeded the suit property being the exclusive title holder and the only successor of Jitanram Gond and also setup the plea of adverse possession, as they are in possession for last 35 years.

4. In consequence of the plaintiff having amended the plaint and setup her title seeking declaration of title on the basis of gift deed, the defendants also amended their written statement and inserted para 6(a) in the written statement stating inter alia that the suit property was the ancestral property of Jitanram Gond and part of coparcenary property and therefore Jitanram Gond being one of the coparceners un