JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This is a Regular Second Appeal under Paragraph 32 of the H. P. Courts Order against the decree and judgment dated 17-3-1979 of District Judge, Shimla, whereby the decree and judgment dated 30-3-1974 of Sub-Judge, Rohru, was affirmed and the suit of respondent-plaintiff, Sh. Gulat Ram was decreed. 2. In the Civil Suit filed by Sh, Gulat Ram, he had challenged the gift-deed dated 5-5-1971 executed by his father, Sh. Anant Ram, in favour of his another son, the present appellant-defendant, Sh. Shishi Ram. Sh. Anant Ram was defendant No, 1 before the trial Court. He died during the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge and his name was deleted from the array of the appellants. Sh. Anant Ram was also an appellant alongwith Sh. Shishi Ram in the appeal before the District Judge. The case of Sh. Gulat Ram was that the suit property measuring 3 Bighasll Biswas as described in the plaint was ancestral and his father, Sh. Anant Ram, had no right to gift it to his another son, Sh. Shishi Ram. 3. Both Sh. Anant Ram and Sh. Shishi Ram had filed joint written statement. It was admitted by them that the suit property alongwith other property was originally ancestral between them and Sh. Gulat Ram but in a partition effected by Sh. Anant Ram on 12-3-1971, the suit property alongwith a minor portion of ancestral property was kept by him as his share and rest of the ancestral property which formed major portion was divided between his two sons S/Shu Gulat Ram and Shishi Ram in equal share. As such, Sh. Anant Ram claimed that after partition the suit property became his personal property which he could donate to Sh. Shishi Ram it was clarified in the written statement that the gift was made in lieu of past services and services to be rendered in future by Sh, Shishi Ram to his father Sh. Anant Ram donor as well as his sister who was residing with him. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that even after the partition, the property which fell to the share of Sh. Anant Ram continued to be ancestral property qua his sons, S/Sh. Gulat Ram and Shishi Ram. It was also held that Sh. Anant Ram donor as well as his sister who was residing with him. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that even after the partition, the property which fell to the share of Sh. Anant Ram continued to be ancestral property qua his sons, S/Sh. Gulat Ram and Shishi Ram. It was also held that Sh. Anant Ram had no right to gift the suit property being ancestral property and being not for the purposes which are permitted in law, that is, legal necessity or pious purposes. The District Judge affirmed these findings besides holding that the partition was not proved by cogent and convincing evidence. Hence the present appeal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record Admittedly, in the present appeal, under Paragraph 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Order, this Court has the jurisdiction to examine the case on facts as well as on law, Sh. Sanjiv Kuthiala, appearing vice Sh K D. Sood, learned Counsel for Sh. Shishi Ram has challenged the findings of the District Judge, first of all, that partition alleged by Sh. Shishi Ram and late Sh. Anant Ram was not proved on record by cogent and convincing evidence. He has pointed out Paras 2 and 3 of the written statement wherein the details of the ancestral property and partition are given. These averments have not been specifically denied in the replication filed by Sh. Gulat Ram. He has further pointed out that Sh. Gulat Ram, who appeared as his own witness on 6-6-972, has specifically admitted in cross-examination that be had separated from his father one year before and his father had allotted to him and his brother separate shares in the property. Sh Sanjiv Kuthiala has further pointed out that two of the Arbitrators who had partitioned the land at the instance of Sh. Anant Ram, S/Sh. Harish Chand (DW-3) and Purba Nand (DW-4) have also deposed that they and one Sh. Man Singh had partitioned the ancestral property in equal shares between S/Sh. Gulat Ram and Shishi Raoi after a portion of it was kept by Sh. Anant Ram as his share. According to them, Fard Partition (Deed of Partition) was also prepared at the time of partition. They have also stated that after the partition, Sh. Gulat Ram and Sh. Man Singh had partitioned the ancestral property in equal shares between S/Sh. Gulat Ram and Shishi Raoi after a portion of it was kept by Sh. Anant Ram as his share. According to them, Fard Partition (Deed of Partition) was also prepared at the time of partition. They have also stated that after the partition, Sh. Gulat Ram and Sh. : hishi Ram had been living separately and holding their shares of the property separately. Sh Shishi Ram who has appeared as DW-2 has also admitted the factum of partition and its implementation- S/Sh. Anant Ram and Shishi Ram who have appeared as DW-l and DW-2 have stated on oath their case as put up in the written statement and proved the partition as well as its implementation. 6. On the other hand, Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel for Sh. Gulat Ram, has urged that ^h. Anant Ram and Sh. Shishi Ram have failed to prove the partition alleged by them as they have not brought the parti tion-deed on record. According to him. in the absence of partition deed on record, no oral evidence can be given in proof of the partition in view of section 9I of the Indian Evidence Act, Mr. Sanjiv kuthiala has met this argument by pointing out that as stated in the written statement, Fard partition was in the possession of Sh. Gulat Rarn who had failed to produce it in the Court despite order dated 3-11-1972 passed by the trial Court in the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 44 C. P. C filed on behalf of Sh. Anant Ram. 7. Considering the pleadings, evidence and respective contentions of the parties, I am convinced that the ancestral property as enumerated in Para 2 of the written statement of S/Sh Anant Ram and Shishi Ram was partitioned between them and Sh. Gulat Ram. The partition was not only effected as alleged but was also implemented as admitted by Sh Gulat Ram in his statement and proved by other witnesses of S/Sh Anant Ram and Shishi Ram. The failure on the part of Sh. Gulat Ram to produce the partition deed despite order dated 3-11-1972 of the trial Court further compels me to draw an inference against him that the partition deed was in fact prepared. The failure on the part of Sh. Gulat Ram to produce the partition deed despite order dated 3-11-1972 of the trial Court further compels me to draw an inference against him that the partition deed was in fact prepared. In AIR 1964 SC 136, A. Raghavatnma and another v, A. Chechamma and another, the Supreme Court has heid that whether there is partition in a Hindu joint family is a question of fact which is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties in each case 8. In the present case, the District Judge had arrived at his findings that there was no partition without referring to the pleadings and the evidence discussed hereinabove. So far as the power of father to divide the joint family property is concerned, there cannot be any dispute. In Paragraph 323 of Hindu Law by Mulla (page 4 ;3, Fifteenth Edition), it is stated that, "The father of a joint family has the power to divide the family property at any moment during his life, provided he gives his sons equal shares with himself, and if he does so, the effect in law is not only a separation of the father from the sons, but a separation of the sons inter se. The consent of the sons is not necessary for the exercise of that power. The right of a father to severe the sons inter se is a part of the patria potestas still recognised by the Hindu Law." 9. In the present case, the sons S/Sh, Gulat Ram and Shishi Ram have been given equal share and the father Sh Anant Ram has only kept a minor portion of his own share as stated in Para 2 of the written statement. The whole of the copatcenery property measuring 5i-10 Bighas was divided between the two brother S/Sh Gulat Ram and Shishi Ram and only 14 Bighas 13 Biswas was kept by the father, Sh. Anant Ram as his share. The suit property which was gifted to Sh. Shishi Ram by Sh. Anant Ram was out of 14-13 Bighas. After holding that the suit property was out of the share of the father, Sh. Anant Ram, the next question arises whether he had a right to gift it to one of his sods, Sh Shishi Ram. The suit property which was gifted to Sh. Shishi Ram by Sh. Anant Ram was out of 14-13 Bighas. After holding that the suit property was out of the share of the father, Sh. Anant Ram, the next question arises whether he had a right to gift it to one of his sods, Sh Shishi Ram. For answering this question, it is necessary to examine whether the property of the share of the father, Sh. Anant Ram including the suit property after the partition continued to be coparcenery property or became his personal property in the nature of self acquired property. Sh. Sanjiv Kuthiala has vehemently urged that after the partition, Sh. Anant Ram was holding his share of the property as his self-acquired property but! find myself unable to accept this contention The settled legal position in this regard is laid down in Para 223 (4) read with Para 340 of Hindu Law by Mulla (Pages 291 and 465, Fifteenth Edition), it is stated therein that ancestral property falling to the share of a coparcener continues to be ancestral as regards his male issues. Therefore, this Court has no alternative but to hold that the suit property continued to be ancestral qua S/Sh, Gulat Ram and Shishi Ram even after the partition. 10. The last, but not the least, question is, whether Sh. Anant Ram had a right to gift the suit property to one of his sons, Sh. Shishi Ram for the purpose stated in the gift-deed. A perusal of the gift-deed which was filed by Sh. Gulat Ram himself shows that it was in lieu of past services and services to be rendered by Sh. Shishi Ram in future to his father and his sister who was residing with him. Admittedly, the suit property is only a small portion of the property which fell to the share of Sh. Anant Ram, after the partition. The legal position in this regard as stated in Para 226 (Page 294) of Hindu Law by Mulla (Fifteenth Edition) is that a "Hindu father has the power to make gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immoveable property for "pious purposes". Anant Ram, after the partition. The legal position in this regard as stated in Para 226 (Page 294) of Hindu Law by Mulla (Fifteenth Edition) is that a "Hindu father has the power to make gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immoveable property for "pious purposes". But tbe alienation must be by an act inter vivos, and not by will." In AIR 1957 SC 434, Smt. Kamla Devi and another v. Bachulal Gupta and others ; ATR 1964 SC 510, Guramma Bhartar Chanbasappa Deshmukh and others v I. Mallappa Chanbasappa and another, and AIR 1967 SC 569 Ammathayee alias Perumallakkal and another v. Kumaresan alias Bala krishnan and others, the Supreme Court held the gifts made in favour of a daughter by her widowed mother or father, at the time of her marriage or later on, of a reasonable portion of the ancestral property as valid and for "pious purposes". 11. Therefore, on the ratio dicidendi of these judgments of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, the gift made by Sh Anant Ram in favour of his son Sh Shishi Ram, for the purpose stated therein, was a valid gift. Besides the consideration of services rendered Sh. Shishi Ram to Sh. Anant Ram himself, it was also for discharging a moral duty towards his aunt (sister of Sh Anant Ram) who was dependant upon Sh. Anant Ram Sh. Gulat Ram has not denied specifically that his aunt was not living with his father, being looked after by his brother, Sh. Shishi Ram, and was dependant on them. The said aunt is a daughter of the family and she has a claim of her maintenance over the ancestral property. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the gift was not for "pious purposes". As already stated above, the gift was only for a small portion of the property falling to the share of Sh. Anant Ram after the partition. 12. The result of these findings is that the appeal is accepted, the decree and judgment dated 17-3-1979 of the District Judge is set aside and the suit of Sh Gulat Ram is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.