Short Note : 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant No.1 arising out of a suit for possession of an agricultural land which has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The facts on longer in controversy are these. The plaintiff Sumatikumar and one Nemichand with some others constituted a joint family and the suit land initially belonged to their family. On 07-06-1954 the present plaintiff Sumatikumar filed an application for permission to sue for partition of the family properties in forma pauperis. The suit for partition was ultimately registered on 19-9-1956. On 17-11-1958 a preliminary decree for partition was passed. On 21-12-1960 final decree was passed in that suit whereby the suit land was allocated to the share of the plaintiff Sumatikumar. However, in the mean time, Nemichand, one of the coparceners, made an application on 5-5-1956 to the Sub-Divisional Officer expressing his desire to make a gift of the suit land in accordance with sub section (1) of section 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 29-10-1956 accepted the gift of the suit land made by Nemichand alone. Thereafter the defendant No 2 Bhudan Yagna Mandal granted a lease of the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 Bhagchand on 29-3-1963. The present suit was filed on 3-5-1967 by the plaintiff Sumatikumar for possession of the suit land on the basis of his title, the land having been allocated to his share in the final decree for partition passed in the aforesaid partition suit. 3. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and that decree has been affirmed on appeal by the District Court. Held : From the facts stated above, it is obvious that the offer of gift was itself made by Nemichand after initiation of the suit for partition by Sumatikumar to which he was a party and apparently this fact was not indicated to the Sub-Divisional Officer who subsequently accepted the offer of that gift. Ordinarily, no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in a coparcenary property by gift except with the consent of the other coparceners (see section 258, Mulla's Hindu Law 14th Edition). It has been found as a fact that the other coparceners had not consented to the gift being made by Nemichand on account of which such a gift would be void. It has been found as a fact that the other coparceners had not consented to the gift being made by Nemichand on account of which such a gift would be void. The said gift was made during the pendency of the suit for partition and therefore it was of no consequence. The transaction purporting to be a gift by Nemichand has, therefore to be totally ignored. Consequently, the plaintiff's exclusive title to the suit land by allocation of the same to his share in the partition suit is unassailable. The suit having been brought within a period of twelve years on the basis of plaintiff's title must, therefore, succeed. 4. Shri Navlekar, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953, prohibits the bringing of a civil suit beyond the period of six months from the date of an order made under section 17 of the said Act, to have that order set aside. It is sufficient to state that the present suit is in substance for recovery of possession based on subsisting title, the. Sub-Divisional Officer's order made under section 17 of the Act accepting Nemichand's offer of gift being void as aforesaid had to be ignored and did not require to be set aside. In such a situation, a suit like the present is governed by the general rule of limitation prescribing the period of twelve years (see Mohd Murtiza Khan v. State of M.P. and others). ( 1966 JLJ 543 SC). The suit was, therefore, rightly decreed. Appeal dismissed.