A coparcener cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in the family property, and a gift must be of a reasonable extent.

JUDGMENT

D. Dash, J.- The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Boudh in RFA No.12 of 2013.

By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court while dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Appellant (defendant) under section 96 of the Code has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Boudh in under Civil Suit No.76 of 2011.

The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of their possession in the suit land with further declaration that the registered deed of gift dated 02.09.1967 said to have been executed by their maternal grandmother, namely, Sapura Dehuri in favour of Bilasha Dehuri is illegal and void, so also the Will dated 12.04.2011 purported to have been executed by Late Biranchi Dehuri in favour of the Appellant-Defendant. Further, relief of permanent injunction has also been sought for.

The Suit having been decreed, this Appellant-Defendant which has also been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff's case in short is that the land described in the schedule of the plaint belong to one Barsana Bhukta who died leaving his widow Sapura and four daughters namely, Budhubari, Asha, Nirasa and Bilasa. Budhubari and Asha died issueless in the year, 1970 and 1980 respectively. In the year 1983, Nirasa died leaving as heir heirs, her two sons, the Plaintiffs. After the death of the daughters of Barsana, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the property.

The Plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit No.56 of 2009 for partition of the suit land arraigning Bilasha as the Defendant. Bilasha died during the said suit and then her husband Biranchi came to be substituted. He filed the written statement claiming exclusive right over the suit land on the strength of one registered of deed of gift dated 02.09.1967 covering the entire property standing in favour of his wife, Bilasha which he inherited upon Bilasha's death. With that stand being taken by the Biranchi, he, however, died before that suit came up for adjudication. At that juncture, this Defendant who is the nephew of Biranchi (sister's son) filed an application for being impleaded as party to that Suit. He claimed his right, title and interest over the suit land on the strength of a Will dated 12.04.2011 executed by said Biranchi who was the receipient under the deed of gift executed by Sapura in favour of his wife and then on her death by inheritance. It may be stated here Defendant is the sister's son of Biranchi.

Plaintiffs state that they had performed the funeral right of both Bilasha and Biranchi. After death of Bilasha, they became the owners of the same and possessed the same all along Stating the Biranchi had no right to bequeath the property by executing the Will in favour of the Defendant. The recording of the suit land during pendency of the Suit in the name of Biranchi is said to be in collusion with the Revenue Authority behind the back of the Plaintiffs which had been challenged by carrying Mutation Appeal.

In view of all such developments coming to the notice of the Plaintiffs as regards the claim based on the registered gift deed and then again the Will, the said Suit being withdrawn by them, with due permission, the present Suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid has been filed.

4. The Defendant in his written statement traversing the plaint averments has stated that the Plaintiffs as well as their mother, Nirasa were well aware of the execution and registration of the gift deed on 02.09.1967 and there was no objection from their side at any point of time when they were also neither in possession of the suit land nor paying the land revenue for t