The validity of a gift of ancestral property under Mitakshara Hindu Law can be voidable if made without consent from all coparceners, and challenges to such gifts may be barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash,J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 03.02.1990 and 17.02.1990 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Balesore in S.J.A. No.19/17 of 1988/86-I.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the original Respondent (Plaintiff) under section 96 of the Code in assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.01.1986 and 30.01.1986 respectively passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Balesore in O.S. No.167/115 of 1982-80 has been allowed. The First Appellate Court has thereby set aside the order of dismissal of the suit filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff) arraigning the Appellant as the Defendant and in turn has decreed the suit holding the suit land described in Schedule-Ka of the plaint to be a part and parcel of the property of the original Respondent (Plaintiff) by declaring the registered gift deed dated 28.04.1975 executed by the original Respondent (Plaintiff) in favour of the Appellant (Defendant) as illegal and inoperative.

At this stage, it may be stated that the original Respondent having died, his legal representatives having come on record as the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(h) had filed an application to implead two persons, namely, Kamala Kanta Malik, Amarendra Kumar Hota and Saraswati Sishu Vidya Mandir represented by its Secretary as the purchasers of the properties during this lis from the Appellant (Defendant) providing the details of the properties purchased by them in the schedules given therein in further stating that those have been sold by the Appellant (Defendant) by registered sale deeds.

This Court, upon hearing the parties, by order dated 23.12.2020, has allowed the same and accordingly those purchasers have been arraigned as Respondents 2 to 4 and they have entered appearance in this Appeal.

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. Plaintiff’s Case:-

One day, finding the Defendant, then a four years male child, on the side of the village lane, being so abandoned, out of compassion and sympathy, the Plaintiff had brought him to his house and he with his wife took all his care and brought him up. The Plaintiff tried his best to educate the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not make much of progress in that line. When things stood thus, the Defendant, on attaining the age of 14-15 years, came out to help the Plaintiff in his cultivation operation and activities. He was also working as a field labour in the village at the time of need. In this way, while living with the Plaintiff, the Defendant reached at the age at which the rural youth normally go for marriage. The Plaintiff then sincerely wanted to get the Defendant married. Since the Plaintiff had no such landed property to his credit and his parentage being not known had no hope of inheriting/succeeding to the property therefrom, difficulties arose on the way of finding out a suitable bride for him as the questions come to be posed as to the future security and living. When the matter was procee