IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.518 of 1999 . 1. Pujari Pandey son of late Bishwanath Pandey. 2. Ajay Pandey @ Ajay Kumar Pandey 3. Vijay Pandey Nos. 2 and 3 sons of Pujari Pandey All resident of vidllage Barhara, P.S. Kuchaikote(now Gopalpur) District Gopalganj. ……(Defendant Nos. 1 to 3-appellant)- Appellants. Versus 1. Dhurendhar Pandey, son of late Bishwanath Pandey 2. Sabitri Devi wife of Dhurendhar Pandey (Plaintiff-Respondent) 3. Basanti Devi, daughter of late Bishwanath Pandey 4. Sugandhi Devi, daughter of late Bishwanath Pandey 5. Saraswati Devi, daughter of late Bishwanath Pandey (Defendants no. 4 to 5-Appellant). 6. Mahashraj Thakur 7. Dhora Thakur Sons of not known. 8. Sita Ram Rai 9. Binod Kumar Rai 10. Rajendra Rai Sons of Rajdhari Rai. (Defendants no.6 to 10-Respodndents) All residents of village Barhara, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt. Gopalganj. ____ For the appellants : Mr. Akhauri Baidya Nath Prasad,Advocate For the Respondents: None ------ 06/ 26.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 3-appellant-appellants challenging judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 35 of 1990, which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents no.1 and 2 for a decree of partition of their moiety share in the suit land and also for declaration that the deed of gift dated 23.10.1989 executed by Vishwanath Pandey in favour of his grand sons( defendants no.2 and 3) was void and inoperative document and for other ancillary reliefs. 2 4. The said title suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Gopalganj, vide judgmemt and decree dated 28.02.1997. The said judgment and decree of the learned trial court was challenged by defendants no. 1 to 3 in T.A. No. 31 of 1997, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Gopalganj, vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.1999. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. After considering the entire matter in detail and after perusing the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is found that the learned courts below have very carefully gone through the relevant pleadings and evidence of the parties, whereafter they have come to the conclusion that the impugned deed of gift was not a valid and legal document as the executant of the deed Vishwanath Pandey used to put his signatures but no signature was found on the said deed of gift and the witness of the defendants, namely Manoj Shukla, while deposing as D.W.4 specifically stated that Vishwanath Pandey (executant) had given thumb impressions at five or six places on blank stamp papers and, thereafter, scribe filled up the papers, which, even according to him, clearly shows that the thumb impressions of Vishwanath Pandey were taken on blank papers, which were filled up subsequently. It was also found that the suit property being ancestral property and no partition having taken place in the family, the execution of the deed of gift in respect of joint and undivided ancestral property cannot be held to be 3 legal and valid as it is settled principle of Hindu Law that the joint undivided ancestral property cannot be gifted by one co-sharer and, accordingly, Vishwanath Pandey had no right to transfer the property by the said deed of gift. 6. With regard to question of share of said Vishwanath Pandey, the learned courts below concurrently found that the deed of gift having been found to be void and illegal document as the property was undivided ancestral policy having no previous partition and there being no previous partition, plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 being the sons of Vishwanath Pandey had equal share in the said property and there was unity of title and possession between them. In the said circumstances, it was decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the ancestral property. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )