No pleading by plaintiff that the gift was not of a reasonable portion.

ABDUL HADI, J.

Defendants 1 to 7, 11 and 12 are the appellants in this first appeal against the preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff 1st respondent's 1/10th share in the plaint scheduled properties (as against the plaintiff's claim for 1/9th share thereof). The Court below has also directed that the family debts has to be discharged out of the said properties and that the 1st defendant has to account for the profits from the said properties from 8-12-1981, the date of the suit notice.

2. There is no dispute regarding the following relationship between the parties: The 1st defendant is the father. He has two wives, the 1st wife being 9th defendant and the 2nd wife being 10th defendant. Both the wives are sisters, Through 9th defendant, the 1st defendant has six sons, the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 6, and 2 daughters, defendants 1 and 12. Through 10th defendant, the 1st defendant has two sons, viz., defendants 7 and 8 and one daughter, viz., 13th defendant. Thus, on the whole the 1st defendant has eight sons and three daughters. The suit properties are described in plaint A to F schedules. But, of these, D to F schedule properties are movable properties and there was no separate argument by either side regarding the same. A to C schedule properties are immovable properties. Defendants 8 to 10 and 13 are respondents 2 to 5 respectively in this appeal.

3. In the light of the argument, advanced before us, the material plaint allegations are briefly as follows: The Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 are coparceners of the undivided Hindu joint family and the 1st defendant is the Kartha thereof. The suit properties are joint family properties. 22 acres of land comprised in S. Nos. 807/1, 807/2, 808/1, and 808/2 with large irrigation wells (A schedule Items 1 to 3) and palacial houses describe as Items 5 and 6 in A schedule are the ancestral joint family properties and the 1st defendant, as kartha, has been managing them. They are, very fertile and income yielding properties. The 1st defendant has been realising enormous income therefrom. For the purpose of avoiding tax laws and Land Reforms Act, the subsequent acquisitions were made in the names of plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 9, though the acquisitions were made from out of the income derived from the joint family properties and from out of the exertion of the members of the said family. Apart from the income from the joint family properties, none of the members of the family had any independent sources of income. The 9th defendant hails from a very poor family. She did not bring any jewels or money as stridhana. B schedule properties were purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant. The properties purchased in the name of 9th defendant are set out in C schedule. Band C schedule properties were treated only as joint family properties. The family of the plaintiff and defendants is a rich agricultural family in the, locality. Except the loan amounts borrowed from the Co-operative Society, the family does not owe any amounts. The plain- tiff is the eldest son and he studied upto 9th standard. The plaintiff contributed his labour for the agricultural operations of the family properties. In the year 1980 misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and due to hostile treatment of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff was driven to the necessity of living in another village with his wife and children. Even thereafter, the 1st defendant was giving troubles to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant flatly refused to effect partition of the family porperties. Forest alling the plaintiff's legal action, the 1st defendant brought about a frauduelant document, purporting to be a deed of family partition. The unilateral partition alleged to have been effected under the said document is thoroughly unfair and unjust and the said document is void for the following reasons:- The said document has left out valuable movable and immovable properties and the family incl