1. The plaintiffs / appellants filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and declaration that the plaintiffs / appellants are not bound by the B / 1 and D / 1 Schedule gift deeds and that the said gift deeds may be set aside. Ancillary reliefs were also prayed.

2. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The appellants assail the impugned judgment and decree primarily on two grounds - that the Scheduled D / 1 gift deed was not acted upon by the parties and that the same was obtained by fraud / misrepresentation.

4. Although in the suit, both B / 1 and D / 1 Schedule gift deeds were challenged, learned counsel for the appellants confines his arguments to the challenge only in respect of Schedule D / 1 gift deed, and does not press the challenge to the B / 1 Schedule deed.

5. One Akshay Narayan Pahari was the original owner of the properties. On his demise, he left behind Shyamapada and Abhinash, two sons. Abhinash and his wife Bimala died issueless. Shyamapada died in the year 1990 and his wife Monimoyee died in the year 2006, leaving behind three sons - Umapada (defendant No.1), Ramapada (who died in 1994 leaving behind his wife Sumati, who is the plaintiff / appellant No.1, and three daughters, being plaintiff nos.2, 3 and 4) and Bishnupada (defendant No. 6) as well as three daughters, namely Gauri, Parvati and Durga, defendant nos.3, 4, and 5 respectively.

6. By the impugned deed, described as D / 1, Ramapada gifted his property to Umapada.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the gift deed (described in D / 1 Schedule of the plaint), which was exhibited as Exhibit - 6 in the suit, was not acted upon during the lifetime of the donor Ramapada, the predecessor of the plaintiffs. Although the deed was allegedly executed and registered in the year 1988, mutation was first applied for by the donee, Umapada, in the year 2005 and subsequently a mutation certificate obtained (Exhibit - C). The tax receipts (Exhibit - A collectively) produced by the plaintiffs in respect of the subject - property relate to the year 2016. As such, during the long period of 17 years after the execution of the deed, the same was not acted upon.

8. It is argued that the learned Trial Judge proceeded to justify the distribution of the property by the impugned D / 1 Schedule deed in terms of several other gift deeds executed on the same day by the other co - sharers in the ancestral property in respect of their respective sharers therein. By virtue of the said gift deeds, the different co - owners distributed their respective shares of the property amongst each other. According to the learned Trial Judge, such distribution was otherwise equitable between the plaintiffs and defendants and, as such, does not cast any shadow of doubt on the D / 1 deed. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the subject - matter of the D / 1 deed pertained to a separate property individually purchased by Ramapada from his own funds, which was not a part of the joint hotchpot of ancestral properties. Thus, there could not have been any justification for Ramapada executing the said gift deed, thereby depriving his heirs, the present plaintiffs / appellants, by throwing Ramapada's self - acquired property into the hotchpot of the ancestral property.

9. Learned counsel next contends that since several deeds were executed on the same date, there was every chance of misrepresentation in respect of the subject - properties of the gift deeds, which were drafted under the control of Umapada, the defendant / respondent No. 1.

10. It is argued that defendant No.6, as D.W.4, adduced evidence as an independent and disinterested witness, since he did not acquire or lose any right by the impugned deed. D.W.4 categorically stated in his evidence that the said deed was not acted upon or executed.

11. Thus, it is clear that the said deed was obtained by misrepresentation along with the s