JUDGMENT S.N. Katju, J. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The question for consideration is whether the deed of gift of the property in dispute executed by Hadi Yar Khan on 23-7-1951 in favour of his grandson (son's son) Sarwar Yar Khan was valid. The aforesaid gift was challenged by the defendants who are the paternal uncles sons of the plaintiffs father. It was contended by them that the gift was of an undivided share, it was executed at the time of Marzul maut and lastly that they were in possession of a part of the property which was the subject matter of the gift and, therefore, the deed of gift was invalid. The court below has found that there was a partition and that Hadi Yar Khan was in sole possession of the property in dispute. It has further found that the plea of Marzul Maut had no force. It also found that the defendants had encroached on a portion of the land in dispute in August 1951 and, therefore, the gift was invalid because delivery of possession had not been given in respect of a portion of the property covered by the gift. It has found that the encroachment was by the defendants themselves. Hadi Yar Khan had done all which he could do to convey the property by gift to the plaintiff, his grandson. The deed of gift had been duly registered. The defendants cannot take advantage of their own aggression and encroachment on the land in dispute. 3. It was observed by the Judicial Committee in Kalidas v. Kanhaiya Lal, ILR (1884) 11 Cal. 121 : "But it must be observed that in this case the dispute as to the validity of the gift is not between the donee and the donor. The person who disputes it claims adversely to both. The donor has done all that she can to complete the gift and is a party to the suit, and admits the gift to be complete." The aforesaid rule was followed by the Judicial Committee in Mahmood Buksh v. Hosseini Bibi, ILR 15 Cal. 684 where their Lordships observed : "In this case it appears to their Lordships that the lady (donor) did all she could to perfect the contemplated gift, and that nothing more was required from her. 684 where their Lordships observed : "In this case it appears to their Lordships that the lady (donor) did all she could to perfect the contemplated gift, and that nothing more was required from her. The gift was attended with the utmost publicity, the hibanamah itself authorizes the donees to take possession, and it appears that in fact they did take possession. Their Lordships hold, under these circumstances, that there can be no objection to the gift on the ground that Shahzadi (donor) had not possession, and that she herself did not give possession at the time." The principles laid in the aforesaid decisions clearly apply to the case before me. As stated above, the donor Hadi Yar Khan had done all he could for perfecting the conveyance in favour of the plaintiff who was his grandson. The defendants who are the nephews of Hadi Yar Khan were obviously not happy at the prospect of the latter conveying the property in dispute to his own grandson. They encroached upon the land in dispute and took forcible possession of the same. Under these circumstances the defendants cannot take advantage of their own illegal act, and therefore, it must be held that the deed of gift executed by Hadi Yar Khan was perfectly valid. 4. The appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and the suit is decreed in terms of the decree passed by the trial court. The appellant will get his costs.