A father has the power under Hindu law to make a gift of a reasonable portion of the ancestral property to his daughters, even without the consent of the other coparceners.

R. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants' appeal against a decision dated 16-7-60 of Sri C. Mahapatra. Additional District Judge of Berhampur, reversing a decision dated 228-58 of Sri S. Naik, Munsif of Berhampur in Title Suit No. 124/56.

( 2 ) THE appeal arises under the following circumstances; One Adikanda Sahu had four daughters, Tara (defdt. I), Surekha, (defdt. 2), Rajamani (defendant 3), chandra (who is riot a defdt. here) and the only son Raghunath the present plaintiff. Defendants 4 and 5 are the husbands of defendants 1 and 3 respectively, and defendants 6 to 14 are tenants in possession of the suit land. On 20th April, 1941, Adikanda by a registered deed of settlement (Ext. A) settled the suit-property comprising 7. 31 acres situate in Mouza Pra-tapkrishna Chandrapur in the district of Ganjam, in favour of his wife Mukta and daughters, defendants 1 to 3, stipulating Mukta to have life-interest and after her death the property was to goto her daughters defendants 1 to 3. In accordance with the aforesaid Ext. A, mutation was made in favour of Mukta and defendant 1 to 3 in 1947 (Ext. B ). Adikanda died in March 1953 and his widow mukta in December 1953. Thereafter the defendants 1 to 3 wanted the tenants to execute a Muchalika in their favour and to deliver them the usufruct" of the suit-lands. Then some controversy arose in respect of the title and possession of the suit lands, and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff Raghunath on 22-6-56 claiming a declaration that the father had no right to give away the ancestral property as per the settlement deed (Ext. A) which is a void transaction, and is not binding on him. He also prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendants obviously on the assumption that he still continued in possession of the property.

( 3 ) THE case of defendants 1 to 4 is that the father has every right to give away the property, the suit land which represents only a small fraction of the entire property which was gifted to the defendants with full knowledge of the plaintiff who was a consenting party to the transaction even though he was not a formal party to the document (Ext. A ). They also raised the plea of acquiescence, estoppel and limitation. The case of the tenants-defendants was that they were the bhag-chasis under the plaintiff's father, and after him under Mukta who possessed the property by reason of the aforesaid deed of settlement, and after Mukta they are continuing as Bhagchasis under the daughter-defendants.

( 4 ) THE trial court found that the family had sufficient property and the father was perfectly within his rights to gift away a small fraction of the same in favour of his daughters. The plaintiff knew of this document since 1941, and therefore the suit was barred by limitation and the plaintiff was never in possession since 1941, and he thus dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

( 5 ) THE appellate court, however, negatived the plea of limitation, estoppel and held the suit to be in time and maintainable. He also held that the family having only about forty acres of land, a gift of about eight acres represented almost 175th of the whole estate, cannot be construed to be a reasonable portion of the family property which the father was competent to give away to his daughters. He also found that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit property in the year 1955. Against this decision of the appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed.

( 6 ) AT the hearing of this appeal an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent under" Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. to take by way of additional, evidence some documents filed before this Court. These documents wherefrom it appears that the plaintiff and his father made some other gifts of some other properties to the contesting defendants between the year 1949-53, were produced obviously with the object that the original settlement (Ext. A) was not in fact acted upon and assuming it was acte