JUDGMENT - R.M. KANTAWALA, J.:---Plaintiffs have filed this appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the learned Joint Judge, Poona, which was decreed by the trial Court. Plaintiffs filed a suit to recover possession of 8 annas 11 pies share in the suit lands and for mesne profits for three years. Their contention was that their father was the owner of 8 annas share in his own right and in or about the year 1939 he purchased from his sister Umabai-defendant No. 15, her 11 pies share in the suit lands. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in or about the year 1966, the father of the plaintiffs gifted his 8 annas 11 pies share in the suit lands in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly the plaintiffs have become the owners of that must share in the suit lands and they filed a suit to recover possession and for mesne profit. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1. I am informed that some of the defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit both as regards 8 annas 11 pies share in the suit lands as well as regards the mesne profits. In an appeal preferred by defendant No. 1, the decree passed by the trial Court was reversed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court inter alia held that the gift-deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs on March 8, 1966, was inoperative in law as consent of the other co-sharers to the said gift-deed was not obtained. It is as a result of this finding that the decree that was passed by the trial Court was reversed by the Appellate Court. Plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal against that decree passed by the first Appellate Court. 2. Mr. Kulkarni on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the Appellate Court was in error in declaring the gift-deed by the father in favour of the plaintiffs executed in March 1966 as void and inoperative. He submitted that the question of consent of other co-sharers does not arise. 2. Mr. Kulkarni on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the Appellate Court was in error in declaring the gift-deed by the father in favour of the plaintiffs executed in March 1966 as void and inoperative. He submitted that the question of consent of other co-sharers does not arise. There was already a partition amongst the various members of the family and whatever had come to the share of the plaintiffs father it was his separate property and he was entitled to make a gift thereof without obtaining the consent of other co-sharers even though the property may not have been divided by metes and bounds in accordance with the respective rights of the various co-sharers. He, therefore, submitted that the very basis on which the Appellate Court has set aside the decree that has been passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. In fairness to Mr. Kulkarni, who appears for the plaintiffs, it should be stated that he has sustained the gift to the extent of only 8 annas share and he has not made any claim for 11 pies share in the suit land in respect of which a claim was made on the basis of the purchase effected by the plaintiffs father from his sister, Umabai-defendant No. 15. 3. So far as the 11 pies share which was claimed to have come to the plaintiffs father is concerned, there is one infirmity. The right thereto is claimed on the footing that Umabai had 11 pies share in the suit land. Umabai obtained various properties by way of gift from her mother Laxmibai; but there is nothing in the indenture of gift to show that the suit property was included therein. If the suit property was not included in the gift-deed in favour of Umabai, she does not acquire any title to the suit property or any portion thereof as a result of the said gift-deed. To that extent any sale by Umabai in favour of the father of the plaintiffs in respect of 11 pies share will not be valid so as to confer any title in respect of any such share. Mr. Kulkarni, therefore, has rightly not Advocated the case in respect of this 11 pies share in the suit land. 4. That takes me to the remaining 8 annas share in the suit property. Mr. Kulkarni, therefore, has rightly not Advocated the case in respect of this 11 pies share in the suit land. 4. That takes me to the remaining 8 annas share in the suit property. This share has been gifted by the father of the plaintiffs to them. The title of the father to this 8 annas share has not been controverted by any of the parties. If that is so, then the father, who was a co-sharer in this property can always make a gift thereof to the extent of his share therein without obtaining any consent of the other co-sharers. This is not a case where the property is held to be a co-parcenary property at the time of the gift by the father. After all the property was his separate property and there was no limitation either under the Hindu Law or under any other law under which a co-sharer while gifting away his property should obtain the consent of the other co-sharers. Question of consent can only arise when an undivided interest in a co-parcenary property is gifted by a member of the family. We are not concerned with a case of that type. Thus, the Appellate Court was in error in taking the view that in the absence of the consent of the other co-sharers any gift by the father to the plaintiffs is inoperative in law. As no such consent is required in law, the plaintiffs have ultimately established title at least to the 8 annas share in the property and they will be entitled to possession thereof. Parties have agreed that the mesne profits for a period of three years prior to the date of the suit to respect of 8 annas share in the suit property will be Rs. 300/-. So far as the future mesne profits are concerned, they shall have to be determined as directed by the trial Court under the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But such mesne profits shall be restricted to only 8 annas share of the plaintiffs in the suit property. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession of 8 annas share in the suit property along with the other co-sharers. Defendant No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. But such mesne profits shall be restricted to only 8 annas share of the plaintiffs in the suit property. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession of 8 annas share in the suit property along with the other co-sharers. Defendant No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. 300/- to the plaintiffs as mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the institution of the suit. The future mesne profits in respect of the 8 annas share in the suit property will be determined under the directions of the trial Court having regard to the provisions of Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs will be entitled to costs throughout from defendant No. 1 only. -----